Nostr Open Ladder System;
An inconsistent open ranking system for (verifiable) games.
Chess will be used to illustrate the system.
- All events will require timestamps in order to be considered valid, creating resilience to trivial post-hoc attacks.
- Each player declares their player-profile, which is serves as the genesis event of the coming linked list of matches.
- Each match consists out of a ‘match declaration’ event, which is a musig between the participants, which references their respective previous match results, amongst stuff about the game, and possible tournament, possible referee, etc.
- Each player is responsible for analyzing their opponents match history on possible inconsistencies in order to determine a ‘distrust-score’ before deciding to engage in the musig/match.
- Each match then normally has a ‘match result’ event, stating the outcome of the match and each players new ELO-score.
- For any reason one or both of the players can publish a dispute event; this serves as the reference for the next match, not impacting the elo-scores.
-This results in each player having their own chain of matches that can be verified on internal consistency. Subsequently more analyses of all the subsequent opponents histories could also be verified, etc. The closer the proximity between a players existing social graph, and opponents match history, the less of such verification has to be done.
- Any inconsistencies that arise as a result of using wrong ELO-scores, or forks due to dispute events will be tolerated in terms of calculating the ELO-score, but will be judged on in terms of ‘distrust scoring’ and may result in exclusion/not engaging in matches.
-inconsistencies can be pointed out on their own, locally within the chain of matches, so records of these ‘proofs of inconsistency’ could be made and distributed. i.e. digging up dirt on a player.
-Trust scores based on your own social graphs, and distrust scores based on inconsistencies in players history, give players the means to find and play against other players that they want.
-Bootstrapping trust networks could be done via tournaments and leveraging existing chess communities and ‘influencers’
Login to reply
Replies (1)
This is for your consideration Nostr.
Here is a mechanism to play ‘games’ on Nostr. Now ‘games’ here means any sequence of events by an actor or between actors, which is relevant to a third actor. As far as I am aware it is impossible to create a ‘perfect’ system that can’t be cheated/exploited. Yet perhaps there is way in which cheating is both difficult and as obvious as possible. Everything is done simply by publishing Nostr events.
Variation of this mechanism can be used to create open ladder systems to keep track of a players relative score (like an ELO-rating), but the example of a simple game of ‘higher or lower’ will be used to illustrate the mechanism.
The first part of the mechanism is to ensure a consistent sequence. This is done by using a linked-list, where every action references the previous action. The existence of mutually exclusive actions or parallel sequences is clear proof of cheating. This allows one to go through the players history and calculate their current score.
The second part is removing the ability for post-hoc actions, i.e. performing an action after the fact pretending this action was performed in the past. This is done via the use of NIP-03 opentimestamps, committing the linked-list sequence of actions to moments in time. This does not actually do a whole lot other than forcing cheaters to premeditate their fraud.
The third part is the use of multisignature, such that two or more actors sign off on the (inter)action going on.
In this system, a cheater has to conspire in order to sign and timestamp both option before the fact, and only publish the preferred one after the fact. This means that you trust at least one of the players to be honest in the way that they don’t go along with a conspiracy to cheat.
All well and good, but by using bots, which are more than willing to both cooperate in any conspiracy, and don’t mind sacrificing their own score for the greater good of the bot-master, any cheater can still trivially rig their score.
Hence lastly the mechanism relies on subjective valuation of the trustworthiness of the other players. So despite all the formal bells and whistles, it ultimately hinges on your ability to asses ‘the world’, whether you fall victim to cheaters.
Will this work? We can ponder, we can think of all kinds of ways sophisticated botnets could infiltrate trust-networks in order to later be leveraged in schemes without raising suspicion. But my meta-point here is that this is true for everything; be it a games core or ‘social status’.
Therefor, games on Nostr are not just a potentially ‘fun’ thing onto themselves, they could be the battlegrounds for WoT attack and defense; forcing attackers into more and more sophistication by developing better methods of assessment which can be leveraged in Nostr more broadly. A place where cheating can actually be encouraged, for it show where all of our collective blind spots are.
View quoted note →