The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude.
I would like to see non-centralized single market that has protocol for multiple transparent brokers that compete with fees and have their reputation there for everyone to see and judge any way they want. This way the risk of large bets could be divided between brokers.
Broker would be just identity and the 'implementation' could be single individual (anonymous or not), multiple individuals (broker syndicate) who would vote among themselves and manage their membership. Ability to attach decentralized algorithms as brokers should be also possible if taken into account when designing the protocols.
> The problem with this proposal is that there is single central (but non-centralized) counterparty risk. If the market grows big, there will be huge monetary incentives to try to find weaknesses in the system and find to collude.
Is this a problem for Bitcoin that there's a 'central' counterparty (the network)? If it is, then multiple Truthcoin networks could be run.
I would like to see non-centralized single market that has protocol for multiple transparent brokers that compete with fees and have their reputation there for everyone to see and judge any way they want. This way the risk of large bets could be divided between brokers.
Broker would be just identity and the 'implementation' could be single individual (anonymous or not), multiple individuals (broker syndicate) who would vote among themselves and manage their membership. Ability to attach decentralized algorithms as brokers should be also possible if taken into account when designing the protocols.