shortwavesurfer2009 on Nostr: woodsers response: > Would you mind reading through this and giving your response? a ...
woodsers response:
> Would you mind reading through this and giving your response?
a malicious arbitrator could attempt to take offers, hoping to be assigned trades and then unfairly award funds to themselves. however this risk can be mitigated by:
- a sufficient number of arbitrators - the best way to mitigate this risk is to have a sufficient number of honest arbitrators, so a dishonest arbitrator is unlikely to be assigned a trade before being detected and banned. this creates an economic incentive for arbitrators to act honestly and earn trade fees rather than risk exclusion
- arbitrator selection by the maker - the maker can select an arbitrator from a trusted list rather than relying on random assignment (the current default)
- trade limits per client - restricting the number of active trades or funds at risk per client further reduces potential damage from a dishonest arbitrator
in contrast, centralized exchanges like localmonero, openmonero, etc require full trust in the platform operators, because:
- they take full custody of traded funds and can easily steal them at that time
- reputation can be easily faked, so does not provide any guarantee of trustworthiness in trade partners
- they can collect and store sensitive trade details across all traders
- they're more likely to be shut down due to legal compliance, and you're left to find a new service
ultimately users should consider the trustworthiness of the haveno network they're using and its arbitrators, but these networks provide greater decentralization, privacy, and control of funds than centralized services, which are a single point of failure
link to woodser's response to prove i didnt make it up: https://matrix.to/#/!UuoWQWMGvPBHkIgWGJ:monero.social/$bVIMNjW1yEbdIHK-yEPuN-H2fXVmqEaXXLe4lgtuk68?via=monero.social&via=matrix.org&via=catgirl.cloud
> Would you mind reading through this and giving your response?
a malicious arbitrator could attempt to take offers, hoping to be assigned trades and then unfairly award funds to themselves. however this risk can be mitigated by:
- a sufficient number of arbitrators - the best way to mitigate this risk is to have a sufficient number of honest arbitrators, so a dishonest arbitrator is unlikely to be assigned a trade before being detected and banned. this creates an economic incentive for arbitrators to act honestly and earn trade fees rather than risk exclusion
- arbitrator selection by the maker - the maker can select an arbitrator from a trusted list rather than relying on random assignment (the current default)
- trade limits per client - restricting the number of active trades or funds at risk per client further reduces potential damage from a dishonest arbitrator
in contrast, centralized exchanges like localmonero, openmonero, etc require full trust in the platform operators, because:
- they take full custody of traded funds and can easily steal them at that time
- reputation can be easily faked, so does not provide any guarantee of trustworthiness in trade partners
- they can collect and store sensitive trade details across all traders
- they're more likely to be shut down due to legal compliance, and you're left to find a new service
ultimately users should consider the trustworthiness of the haveno network they're using and its arbitrators, but these networks provide greater decentralization, privacy, and control of funds than centralized services, which are a single point of failure
link to woodser's response to prove i didnt make it up: https://matrix.to/#/!UuoWQWMGvPBHkIgWGJ:monero.social/$bVIMNjW1yEbdIHK-yEPuN-H2fXVmqEaXXLe4lgtuk68?via=monero.social&via=matrix.org&via=catgirl.cloud