Negative reputation tied to payment account about proposals HOT 18 CLOSED

A quite simple idea.
Scams often are done via stolen fiat accounts.
So add as a public account info the sha256() of the used fiat account IBAN.
If/when we notice that a given IBAN corresponds to a badly behaving IBAN, then add the sha256() of this IBAN to a public blacklist. Could even be managed internally to Bisq.
So we have blacklisting, concerning the root of worries which is the IBAN, but without disclosing it.
(We can blacklist onions ... but this proves to be not super efficient).

(Sorry if this idea was already proposed/dismantled).

from proposals.

I have a couple of thoughts and comments I would like to share. In general as the pool of makers and takers are relatively small to derive any significant importance in one way or the other, I think at best (to weed out the bad players) is to perhaps define better instances for everyone to comment (for concensus purposes) between what might be considered deliberate or just simple negligence as a starting point. In this approach, this would alleviate tedious details of figuring out all possible outcomes on the onset of defining a problem.

For instance the negative point system seems a reasonable implementation, however, what would help me evaluate is what would constitute a -1 vs let say -4 points..... and would the points ever get back to 0?

Please feel free to comment on anything I say, as I am completely new to Forums.... :)

from proposals.

It is worth a try I would think. Interesting concept. Count the sins not the deeds. I guess that I always try to find the humor in stuff. Also seems weird to say I'm a zero and being proud of it.

from proposals.

Interesting way to get around the sybil attack problem.
Maybe we could have a incident category as supplement to the reputation score, so you can filter out incidents that are not direct fraud attempts, and make a more fair aggregated score.
Else the likelyhood of having bad reputation seems to increase the more you use the system.

from proposals.

This idea of negative (reverse) reputation system was also discussed on the forum:
https://bisq.community/t/sellers-beware-heads-up-chargebacks-from-cashapp-venmo-venmo-account-frozen/5388/22

A question for @ManfredKarrer :
ATM, if I understand well, the onion address is linked solely/purely to the computer used (and maybe also to the IP ?)
Could it be possible to force a user's first .onion address to be a definitive/immutable one ? ie is it possible to link the onion address to the user ?
or maybe, even if it is technically possible, it may be not desirable ?

from proposals.

@cypherspace86 The idea is to only punish real misbehavior not honest mistakes.
Completely clear scams like a charge back lead anyway to a blocking of the user.

from proposals.

@HarryMacfinned It's not possible to tie the onion address to anything physical, it can easily be changed and the same one can also be moved between computers. I also think as you say that it's not desirable to have a reputation system like that as it becomes a way to identify users.

@ManfredKarrer I like this as I think this negative reputation system is a lot less problematic to the general privacy of the system compared to the account verification proposal. This seem to have very little drawback, the only real issue I see is a bad arbitrator giving incorrect ratings. That would be unfortunate for the user but pretty harmless for the system. It could possibly also be grounds for kicking that arbitrator out. This might not be as comprehensive as an account verification system but it seems worth implementing.

@cypherspace86 I imagine it would be only fraud attempts that should get a bad rating. Honest mistakes happen, but perhaps it would be possible to hide fraud attempts as honest mistakes and some kind of doubt could add up with a few too many 'honest mistakes'.

from proposals.

@HarryMacfinned
The onion address gets generated by the tor private key which gets created at first app startup. If a user deletes that key it gets re-created, thus he gets a new onion address. The IP is not part of that and does not exist logically in the Tor network.
To change the onion address is a privacy feature, so to stick forever with one is not desirable, we even plan to allow in the app to renew it.

from proposals.

@sqrrm
Re "arbitrator giving incorrect ratings": Arbitrator are bonded and a bad arbitrator could do more harm than giving a bad rating. So I don't consider that an issue. Though the additional burden to be judge here might be an issue. Lets see what the existing arbitrators say...

Please note that this feature does not come with the same protection levels as the verification proposal. A stolen bank account scammer with low fiat amounts can still cash out as he appears as a new fresh user with the default reputation.
I fear even that this proposal deliver relatively low additional protection. From my arbitration experience there have been very few cases where I would have given negative reputation. Probably less then 10.
So it will help to keep traders more honest and not abuse edge case situations like "future trading" and maybe take a bit more care to follow the protocol correctly (e.g. respond in time, check the banks monthly transfer limits before trading,...).

from proposals.

About arbitrators, Account/Arbitrator selection currently exhibits 2 arbitrators (with their associated.onion addresses).
Is that the right number ?

from proposals.

@ManfredKarrer Indeed, this proposal doesn't really target the same issue as the account verification. They still feel somewhat related and I guess the security gained is proportional to the increase in privacy risk.

from proposals.

@HarryMacfinned Yes, there are 2.

from proposals.

We only got 2 👍 reactions on this proposal, and it's not clear to me whether it should be considered approved or stalled. @ManfredKarrer, could you recap as to where you see this proposal is right now? I'd like to get it closed one way or the other and to make next steps clear if that's possible. Thanks.

from proposals.

I see it as stalled though it got positive feedback (I assume some are not that aware to use the upvote feature). I am not very sure about the real value it will provide as real scam attempts are very rare anyway. Beside that we lack on developers to work near term on it. But I would prefer to keep it open to have it more accessible and maybe it serves for others for a new better idea.

from proposals.

I think that idea is not further developed. I will leave it open still as it might still be interesting to read up and might lead to future continuation or extension.

from proposals.

Interesting video to the topic:
Reputation systems based on crypt-anarchistic philosophy can only be based on the past not deal with the future.
https://youtu.be/gTtbkguROdk?t=2121
Might need to watch from start to understand full context.

from proposals.

I'll relate this thread to this fresh posting : bisq-network/bisq#1759

Maybe, one thing we could do, and which won't require targeting users, would be to target behaviours.
So we could simply list the behaviours which have already been proven to be dangerous or that we consider could be.
I assume that many scammers find a limited number of ways to proceed, and stand to those ways.
So by pointing out suspect behaviours, we may already treat a part of scams.

Of course, this may absolutely be still complementary with a negative reputation system.

PS: the video mentionned by Manfred above is worthwhile.

from proposals.

Superseeded by #78

from proposals.