Quote from: gweedo on July 04, 2013, 09:09:17 AM

Quote from: alexykot on July 04, 2013, 08:58:03 AM

Quote from: gweedo on July 03, 2013, 11:23:18 PM

Quote from: alexykot on July 03, 2013, 05:44:20 PM

Quote from: Peter Lambert on July 03, 2013, 04:42:36 PM

Why does it need to be anonymous? I don't think you can have both anonymous and scam-proof at the same time for a lending platform.

Being non-anonymous doesn't prevent scams, because they always can use fake identity. Demanding non-anonymity is not designed to prevent scams, it is designed to scare scams and allow prosecution after scam was revealed. However, in practice prosecution is costy and not effective, especially in bitcoin-based system, so it doesn't help scaring scams away and doesn't prevent scamming in general.

I'm making a system that instead of prosecuting scams post factum will prevent scams from entering the system in the first place.

It is impossible to weed scams out before entering. I could run a scam right now and people would trust me cause I built trust up. So this means your just trying to hype up your platform that is really just like every other platform or you don't understand how this market works.

I'm trying to get clever criticism and peer reviews of the idea. There is no platform yet to create hype around.

So, why do you think it's impossible to weed scams out? Classic lending and microlending institutions right now are tossing scams away effectively, but at a cost of formal due diligence applied to every potential borrower. And still a well prepared professional scammer will get through, because he will prepare and provide trustful legend and supply trustful (fake) documents to support it.

My idea is that we can replace formal due diligence with an informal one, run by those who know potential borrower in person. If you know someone personally, you can judge if he is a scammer or not, and most likely - a real scammer will not even go to you with this, as he knows that you know that he is a scammer.

My idea is not about giving out referrals to anybody you're "in friends" on facebook. It's about to refer only those few who you know and trust in person. And I think it's a matter of giving people right incentive to on the one hand - be willing to get into and get benefits, and on the other - to choose wisely.

Your creating hype by saying you can weed out all scams. I said it is impossible to weed out all scams. You can weed out basic scams, but more advance ones will not work. This idea, is dead your promising too many things that effect each other.

Ok, I see what you mean. It's a misunderstanding, I didn't mean to claim that I can wipe out ALL SCAM AT ONCE and I don't intend to create a hype. Of course it's not possible to stop all scams neither with this, nor with classic formal due diligence process. If be realistic some scam will always be there, it's a scam/non-scam ratio that makes the difference.

Here is my grounding for the thing:
How do we stop scams in theory?
The only thing that really matters is how much it worth to run a scam comparing to the output of scam itself. I.e. the net profit of scam is what is really important. In case of formal due diligence to create successful scam you need to trick due diligence auditors with stolen of fake documents, cleverly crafted legend etc. Depending on auditors experience and thoroughness it can be hard or easy (expensive or cheap). If it's cheap, assuming same level of gross scam profit - net scam profit grows and invites more scams.

How do I stop scams in practice?
This is microlending, so gross scam profit has a top cap, assume fro example that no more than BTC50 loaned at once. Also assume that getting this kind of loan will require three other established respectable borrowers to support you, i.e. risk their reputation and future loan interests for you. How much effort is needed to trick three different people into this, if you don't know them at the beginning? How much effort and time it will take to persuade them to support you, starting from scratch? Does it worth the gross profit of BTC50? Generally this is not easy to measure, and depending on different situations, communities and countries scammer expenses will vary greatly.
In general I think it's possible to maintain scam costs high enough in the way I propose, in detail the swift balance between keeping scam costs high and honest borrowers hassle low will be found based on actual performance stats.

Of course the whole thing will not keep ALL scams away forever. But it will allow to maintain acceptable level of scam/non-scam ratio at lower costs than the formal due diligence.

PS: I've updated original post to make sure it's clear that I'm not claiming to weed out all possible scams.