research-article

Open access

MATCH: A Decentralized Middleware for Fair Matchmaking In Peer-to-Peer Markets

Authors:

Martijn de Vos,

Georgy Ishmaev,

Johan PouwelseAuthors Info & Claims

Middleware '20: Proceedings of the 21st International Middleware Conference

Pages 74 - 88

https://doi.org/10.1145/3423211.3425678

Published: 11 December 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Matchmaking is a core enabling element in peer-to-peer markets. To date, matchmaking is predominantly performed by proprietary algorithms, fully controlled by market operators. This raises fairness concerns as market operators effectively can hide, prioritize, or delay the orders of specific users. Blockchain technology has been proposed as an alternative for fair matchmaking without a trusted operator but is still vulnerable to specific fairness attacks.

We present MATCH, a decentralized middleware for fair matchmaking in peer-to-peer markets. By decoupling the dissemination of potential matches from the negotiation of trade agreements, MATCH empowers end-users to make their own educated decisions and to engage in direct negotiations with trade partners. This approach makes MATCH highly resilient against malicious matchmakers that deviate from a specific matching policy We implement MATCH and evaluate our middleware using real-world ride-hailing and asset trading workloads. It is demonstrated that MATCH maintains high matching quality, even when 75% of all matchmakers is malicious. We also show that the bandwidth usage and order fulfil latency of MATCH is orders of magnitude lower compared to matchmaking on an Ethereum blockchain.

References

[1]

Tariq Abdullah et al. 2010. Effect of the degree of neighborhood on resource discovery in ad hoc grids. In International Conference on Architecture of Computing Systems. Springer, 174--186.

[2]

Abdulrahman A Azab et al. 2008. An adaptive decentralized scheduling mechanism for peer-to-peer desktop grids. In 2008 International Conference on Computer Engineering & Systems. IEEE, 364--371.

[3]

Eduardo M. Azevedo and E. Glen Weyl. 2016. Matching markets in the digital age. Science 352, 6289 (2016), 1056--1057.

[4]

Henri Bal, Dick Epema, Cees de Laat, Rob van Nieuwpoort, John Romein, Frank Seinstra, Cees Snoek, and Harry Wijshoff. 2016. A medium-scale distributed system for computer science research: Infrastructure for the long term. Computer 49, 5 (2016), 54--63.

Digital Library

[5]

Guruduth Banavar et al. 1999. An efficient multicast protocol for content-based publish-subscribe systems. In Proceedings. 19th IEEE International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (Cat. No. 99CB37003). IEEE, 262--272.

[6]

Iddo Bentov et al. 2019. Tesseract: Real-time cryptocurrency exchange using trusted hardware. In Proceedings of the 2019 ACM SIGSAC Conference on Computer and Communications Security. 1521--1538.

[7]

Eszter Bokányi and Anikó Hannák. 2020. Understanding Inequalities in Ride-Hailing Services Through Simulations. Scientific Reports 10, 1 (Dec. 2020), 6500. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-63171-9

[8]

Rajkumar Buyya et al. 2002. Economic models for resource management and scheduling in Grid computing. Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience 14 (2002), 1507--1542.

[9]

Ryan Calo and Alex Rosenblat. 2017. The taking economy: Uber, information, and power. Colum. L. Rev. 117 (2017), 1623.

[10]

Antonio Carzaniga et al. 2001. Design and evaluation of a wide-area event notification service. ACM Trans. Comput. Syst. 19 (2001), 332--383.

Digital Library

[11]

Antonio Carzaniga et al. 2004. A routing scheme for content-based networking. In IEEE INFOCOM 2004, Vol. 2. IEEE, 918--928.

[12]

Miguel Castro, Barbara Liskov, et al. 1999. Practical Byzantine fault tolerance. In OSDI, Vol. 99. 173--186.

Digital Library

[13]

Yatin Chawathe et al. 2003. Making gnutella-like p2p systems scalable. In Proceedings of the 2003 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications. 407--418.

[14]

Pepper D. Culpepper and Kathleen Thelen. 2020. Are We All Amazon Primed? Consumers and the Politics of Platform Power. Comparative Political Studies 53, 2 (2020), 288--318.

[15]

Karl Czajkowski et al. 1998. A resource management architecture for metacomputing systems. In JSSPP. Springer, 62--82.

[16]

Philip Daian et al. 2019. Flash Boys 2.0: Frontrunning, Transaction Reordering, and Consensus Instability in Decentralized Exchanges. arXiv e-prints (2019). arXiv:1904.05234

[17]

Ernesto Damiani, S De Capitani Di Vimercati, and Pierangela Samarati. 2003. Managing multiple and dependable identities. IEEE Internet Computing 7, 6 (2003), 29--37.

Digital Library

[18]

John R Douceur. 2002. The sybil attack. In International workshop on peer-to-peer systems. Springer, 251--260.

Digital Library

[19]

B Pour Ebrahimi, K Bertels, S Vassiliadis, and K Sigdel. 2004. Matchmaking within multi-agent systems. Proceeding of ProRisc-2004 (2004).

[20]

Janick Edinger et al. 2016. Decentralized scheduling for tasklets. In Proceedings of the Posters and Demos Session of the 17th International Middleware Conference. 7--8.

[21]

Shayan Eskandari et al. 2019. SoK: Transparent Dishonesty: front-running attacks on Blockchain. CoRR abs/1902.05164 (2019).

[22]

James Frey et al. 2002. Condor-G: A computation management agent for multi-institutional grids. Cluster Computing 5, 3 (2002), 237--246.

Digital Library

[23]

Hisham S Galal and Amr M Youssef. 2018. Succinctly verifiable sealed-bid auction smart contract. In Data Privacy Management, Cryptocurrencies and Blockchain Technology. Springer, 3--19.

[24]

Hisham S Galal and Amr M Youssef. 2018. Verifiable sealed-bid auction on the ethereum blockchain. In International Conference on Financial Cryptography and Data Security. Springer, 265--278.

[25]

Arthur Gervais, Ghassan O Karame, Karl Wüst, Vasileios Glykantzis, Hubert Ritzdorf, and Srdjan Capkun. 2016. On the security and performance of proof of work blockchains. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. 3--16.

Digital Library

[26]

Jacek Gomoluch et al. 2003. Market-based Resource Allocation for Grid Computing: A Model and Simulation. In Middleware. 211--218.

[27]

Aniko Hannak et al. 2014. Measuring Price Discrimination and Steering on E-Commerce Web Sites. In ICM. 305--318.

[28]

D Haussheer and Burkhard Stiller. 2005. Decentralized auction-based pricing with peermart. In 2005 9th IFIP/IEEE International Symposium on Integrated Network Management, 2005. IM 2005. IEEE, 381--394.

[29]

Aljosha Judmayer et al. 2019. Pay-To-Win: Incentive Attacks on Proof-of-Work Cryptocurrencies. IACR 2019 (2019), 775.

[30]

Aashish Kolluri et al. 2018. Exploiting The Laws of Order in Smart Contracts. CoRR abs/1810.11605 (2018).

[31]

Aurora Labs. 2018. Aurora: A Decentralized Financial Institution Utilizing Distributed Computing and the Ethereum Network.

[32]

Simone A Ludwig et al. 2012. Matchmaking in multi-attribute auctions using a genetic algorithm and a particle swarm approach. In New Trends in Agent-Based Complex Automated Negotiations. 81--98.

[33]

Loi Luu, Duc-Hiep Chu, Hrishi Olickel, Prateek Saxena, and Aquinas Hobor. 2016. Making smart contracts smarter. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGSAC conference on computer and communications security. 254--269.

Digital Library

[34]

Arvind Malhotra and Marshall Van Alstyne. 2014. The dark side of the sharing economy... and how to lighten it. Commun. ACM 57, 11 (2014), 24--27.

Digital Library

[35]

Vasilios Mavroudis and Hayden Melton. 2019. Libra: Fair order-matching for electronic financial exchanges. In Proceedings of the 1st ACM Conference on Advances in Financial Technologies. 156--168.

Digital Library

[36]

Petar Maymounkov and David Mazieres. 2002. Kademlia: A peer-to-peer information system based on the xor metric. In International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems. Springer, 53--65.

Digital Library

[37]

Oved Michael and Mosites Don. 2017. Swap: A Peer-to-Peer Protocol for Trading Ethereum Tokens. https://swap.tech/whitepaper/

[38]

Marian Mihailescu and Yong Meng Teo. 2010. A distributed market framework for large-scale resource sharing. In European Conference on Parallel Processing. Springer, 418--430.

[39]

Alexander Mühle, Andreas Grüner, Tatiana Gayvoronskaya, and Christoph Meinel. 2018. A survey on essential components of a self-sovereign identity. Computer Science Review 30 (2018), 80--86.

[40]

OECD. 2019. An Introduction to Online Platforms and Their Role in the Digital Transformation. 216 pages. https://doi.org/10.1787/53e5f593-en

[41]

Anh Pham et al. 2017. Oride: A privacy-preserving yet accountable ride-hailing service. In USENIX Security. 1235--1252.

[42]

PWC. 2015. Consumer Intelligence Series: The Sharing Economy. Technical Report.

[43]

Rajesh Raman et al. 1998. Matchmaking: Distributed resource management for high throughput computing. In Proceedings of The 7th International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing. IEEE, 140--146.

[44]

Juliet Schor et al. 2016. Debating the sharing economy. Journal of Self-Governance and Management Economics 4, 3 (2016), 7--22.

[45]

Zvi Schreiber. 2020. k-Root-n: An Efficient Algorithm for Avoiding Short Term Double-Spending Alongside Distributed Ledger Technologies such as Blockchain. Information 11, 2 (2020), 90.

[46]

Fabian Schuh and Daniel Larimer. 2017. Bitshares 2.0: general overview. htp://docs.bitshares.org/downloads/bitshares-general.pdf

[47]

Victor Shafran et al. 2008. Towards bidirectional distributed matchmaking. In Proceedings of the 7th international joint conference on Autonomous agents and multiagent systems-Volume 3. International Foundation for Autonomous Agents and Multiagent Systems, 1437--1440.

[48]

K Sigdel et al. 2005. A framework for adaptive matchmaking in distributed computing. In In proceeding of GRID Workshop, Vol. 224.

[49]

Quinten Stokkink, Dick Epema, and Johan Pouwelse. 2020. A Truly Self-Sovereign Identity System. arXiv preprint arXiv:2007.00415 (2020).

[50]

Hemang Subramanian. 2017. Decentralized blockchain-based electronic marketplaces. Commun. ACM 61, 1 (2017), 78--84.

Digital Library

[51]

N TLC. 2017. Nyc taxi and limousine commission (tlc) trip record data.

[52]

David Trastour et al. 2002. Semantic web support for the business-to-business e-commerce lifecycle. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on World Wide Web. 89--98.

[53]

Daniel J Veit. 2003. Matchmaking in electronic markets: An agent-based approach towards matchmaking in electronic negotiations. Vol. 2882. Springer.

[54]

Daniel J Veit et al. 2002. Multi-dimensional matchmaking for electronic markets. Applied Artificial Intelligence 16, 9--10 (2002), 853--869.

[55]

Marko Vukolić. 2015. The quest for scalable blockchain fabric: Proof-of-work vs. BFT replication. In International Workshop on Open Problems in Network Security. Springer, 112--125.

[56]

Daniel Wang et al. 2018. Loopring: A decentralized token exchange protocol. (2018). https://github.com/Loopring/whitepaper/blob/master/en_whitepaper.pdf

[57]

Will Warren and Amir Bandeali. 2017. 0x: An open protocol for decentralized exchange on the Ethereum blockchain. https://github.com/0xProject/whitepaper

[58]

Gavin Wood et al. 2014. Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger. Ethereum project yellow paper 151, 2014 (2014), 1--32.

[59]

Rui Zhu et al. 2016. Network latency estimation for personal devices: A matrix completion approach. IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking 25, 2 (2016), 724--737.

Cited By

de Vos MIshmaev GPouwelse J(2022)Decentralizing components of electronic markets to prevent gatekeeping and manipulationElectronic Commerce Research and Applications10.1016/j.elerap.2022.10122056(101220)Online publication date: Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101220
de Vos MIleri CPouwelse J(2021)XChange: A Universal Mechanism for Asset Exchange between Permissioned BlockchainsWorld Wide Web10.1007/s11280-021-00870-xOnline publication date: 13-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-021-00870-x

Index Terms

MATCH: A Decentralized Middleware for Fair Matchmaking In Peer-to-Peer Markets
1. Computer systems organization
  1. Architectures
    1. Distributed architectures
      1. Peer-to-peer architectures
2. Networks
  1. Network protocols
    1. Application layer protocols
      1. Peer-to-peer protocols

Recommendations

The Role of Surge Pricing on a Service Platform with Self-Scheduling Capacity

Recent platforms, like Uber and Lyft, offer service to consumers via "self-scheduling" providers who decide for themselves how often to work. These platforms may charge consumers prices and pay providers wages that both adjust based on prevailing demand ...
Trust and Trustworthiness in Online Credit Markets
DASC '11: Proceedings of the 2011 IEEE Ninth International Conference on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing

This project examines the role of ability and reliability in assessments of trustworthiness. Specifically, we use data from the lending website Prosper.com, an online marketplace for "peer-to-peer" lending, where potential borrowers post loan requests, ...
Managing Market Mechanism Transitions: A Randomized Trial of Decentralized Pricing Versus Platform Control
EC '19: Proceedings of the 2019 ACM Conference on Economics and Computation

We report on a randomized trial conducted during a market design transition on a sharing economy platform, where providers who formerly set rental prices for their assets were randomly assigned to groups with varying levels of pricing control. Even when ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

Middleware '20: Proceedings of the 21st International Middleware Conference

December 2020

455 pages

ISBN:9781450381536

DOI:10.1145/3423211

Copyright © 2020 Owner/Author.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution International 4.0 License.

Sponsors

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 11 December 2020

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Conference

Middleware '20

Sponsor:

ACM

Middleware '20: 21st International Middleware Conference

December 7 - 11, 2020

Delft, Netherlands

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 203 of 948 submissions, 21%

Upcoming Conference

MIDDLEWARE '24

25th International Middleware Conference

December 2 - 6, 2024

Hong Kong , Hong Kong

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

2
Total Citations
View Citations
694
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)177
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)29

Reflects downloads up to 10 Aug 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

de Vos MIshmaev GPouwelse J(2022)Decentralizing components of electronic markets to prevent gatekeeping and manipulationElectronic Commerce Research and Applications10.1016/j.elerap.2022.10122056(101220)Online publication date: Nov-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.elerap.2022.101220
de Vos MIleri CPouwelse J(2021)XChange: A Universal Mechanism for Asset Exchange between Permissioned BlockchainsWorld Wide Web10.1007/s11280-021-00870-xOnline publication date: 13-Mar-2021
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-021-00870-x

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents