Evoking the Impartial Spectator as a Defense to the Internets General Problem of Sybil-Like Attack

I have written about an extension of Adam Smith’s TOMS and specifically on the concept of the impartial spectator. Here I consider this this in relation to the advent of crypto-currency and a basic concept of smart contracts

We can notice the internet changes the scope of interaction but also with the limitation of being subject to sybil attacks. Bitcoin solves this problem on a certain plane or addresses it in its implementation.

But an argument on Twitter or reddit has the problem of not holding debate-participants accountable to conceding points (especially when one can simply abandon and create anonymous accounts at will).

Reputation systems could be helpful but still have limitations in this regard.

So here I am thinking of the idea that the two debators could be asked (perhaps by one or other) to simultaneously provide potentially mutually agreeable “judges” and to choose an agreed upon set that will make up a “jury”.

To make it more accountable the jury members that are selected can get paid by whoever they agree lost the debate whatever amount the debaters are willing to put on the line.

The act of even evoking this method of debate would give obvious clues as the intentions of the debators and this in itself would begin to make the debators feel more accountable and thus argue with a greater sincerity.

There could as be allowed to be investors or gamblers which make bets and different participants can be paid a house rake collected.

This could obviously be set up like a lightning channel/transaction process where the money is time locked until both parties agree (unlocked if they can’t agree).