There is no such thing. In a 2 out of 3 transaction, 2 out of 3 parties have to agree for the transaction to happen. Thus, if the winner agrees and the arbitrator also agrees, the transactions is conducted. It's a cryptographically secure agreement.
Unfortunately, there's no really good way of establishing that two pseudonyms are not held by the same person, in a decentralized system. Doubly so when legal enforcement isn't available. Of course abuse is harder the more arbitrators you incorporate, but expense and difficulty are higher as well.
Comments
There is no such thing. In a 2 out of 3 transaction, 2 out of 3 parties have to agree for the transaction to happen. Thus, if the winner agrees and the arbitrator also agrees, the transactions is conducted. It's a cryptographically secure agreement.
What if the arbitrator is colluding with the loser?
This problem is not solved via 2of3 transactions.
It can be partially mitigated by requiring multiple arbitrators (e.g. a 4/5 transaction with 3 hopefluly independent arbitrators).
Unfortunately, there's no really good way of establishing that two pseudonyms are not held by the same person, in a decentralized system. Doubly so when legal enforcement isn't available. Of course abuse is harder the more arbitrators you incorporate, but expense and difficulty are higher as well.
That's a human problem, not a Bitcoin problem.