> Instead looking at the problem and find the easiest solution to it offers great time to marked.
The easiest solution you can imagine. These are 90% of the time cute tricks that narrow down the scope of the solution so far it makes the surrounding code unmaintainable after a year.
I learned to call those people "Ricks" they are best used in walled of projects that are not expected to change. Not useable in cooperation.
> Which is not so difficult, because that busy person is in the same organisation as you
Hopefully. But not necessarily. This argument is spinning in circles.
In house projects can be abandoned just as oppen-source ones can.
For me that was Powermock for example.
Then your architect needs a fresh course in how to decide what open source project to use.
When its a critical spot you first check how it is maintained. Its that easy.
I wouldnt worry, the whole system up to this point has used "technobabble" as a means to confuse and impress outsiders. When reading up on it, there is no meaning to find besides "yep, its a linked list allright".
There's a lot of slang and jargon (metaphors, some good, some silly), to the point where most crypto projects are scams, hiding what's going on (many DeFi projects built on Ethereum).
And this is my opinion as someone who loves the value proposition of what cryptocurrency was supposed to be (see first line of Satoshi whitepaper), and care more about seeing the technology gain mindshare than hype cycles and price movement.
A randomly chosen crypto project (including ones that use Ethereum) will probably be mostly nonsense, but Ethereum itself is a serious project with interesting deep engineering.
What technical projects have no impenetrable to outsiders terms at first glance? Try to read information on React, Django, Tensorflow or whatever software project you like from the PoV of an outsider and tell me you won't find plenty of jargon, metaphors etc.
But those also aren't ponzi schemes offering 1000's of % APY based on convoluted multi-token staking schemes, minting, etc. that directly interact with money (as tokens) you send it, potentially breaking SEC rules because of what it means to be a money transmitter (low bar).
(Overall I'm talking about a bunch of tokens/dapps on Ethereum, not Ethereum itself, BTW.).
The latter. Or both: there isn't really a distinction between blockchain and scams. On the merits, blockchains are inarguably a regression on the status quo; philosophically, they solve problems that don't exist in reality. (Censorship is a non-issue.) They exist for one reason only: to provide a faster vehicle for money seeking return. Prior to blockchains, a 100M fund would have to wait ca. 10 years for a ROI; now, due to lack of regulation and etc. etc., you can get a return in 12 to 18 months. That's it. That's all there is.
You're entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts; proof of stake is not 12 years old (Sunny King and Scott Nadal, 2012), and certainly there have been a lot of other hard problems solved since then.
There's a lot of other stuff beyond Ethereum, too. Privacy coins in particular look very little like what was envisioned in Satoshi's paper.
Whether that's all worth anything from an economic perspective, I'm not sure (and even less sure whether it's worth what it's valued), but crypto is legitimately a bunch of very clever technological solutions to hard problems, invented by actual hackers, so I'm a little sad to see people minimizing it on Hacker News.
Especially since this particular innovation is ameliorating the whole global warming problem, which is the prime criticism leveled at crypto. Take that away, and isn't it just open source software that we're talking about here?
Crypto is one of the primary grounds for hacking right now. Not just hacking in the sense of writing code, but hacking in the sense of defining a system from scratch.
Cryptocurrency is so quintessentially hacker that hackers have a "no true scotsman!" moment about its ascent.
Similar feelings abounded with this thing called the Internet if you look in the archives.
Edit: Yes, it's raw. Yes, it's messy. The beginning of every new era of protocols is always like this. Look in the history of computer science and tell me that the Internet's origin was materially more orderly than the chaos that is web3. It's always a mess until it becomes boring, and then we do the dance again.
> The beginning of every new era of protocols is always like this.
No it's not.
Web2 exploded largely because of XMLHTTPRequest which from the second it was released was simple to understand, simple to use and solved an immediate problem.
To this day I'm still yet to find a problem that Web3 solves uniqely well other than money laundering, sanctions evasion etc.
> To this day I'm still yet to find a problem that Web3 solves uniqely well other than money laundering, sanctions evasion etc.
Many of cryptographical constructs of the past 4 years were and are spearheaded by blockchains, in particular fast signature aggregation, threshold signatures protocols and zero knowledge proofs. This translates to protocols for:
- voting.
- splitting a critical company secret between say the CEO, COO, CFO, Head of HR, Compliance, Legal and requiring 4 out of 6 to sign off critical actions, without ever revealing that secret.
- proving that you did or you own something without revealing what. Which could be quite interesting for law enforcement for example.
It's a decade josh and it's still unusable for 80% of people on this planet. I was as excited as everyone was in 2012 but that plateu is just going on and on.
Seems to me like adoption has gone backwards in some regards. Look at companies like Steam which at one point were accepting bitcoin but then pulled the plug on it. I also don't know anyone that owns crypto for any reason other than as an investment.
Adoption? More like, speculation. I still don't know anyone who's doing any real world transactions with crypto, but I know people who hold it for speculation purposes.
Adoption has mostly increased thanks to centralization, via exchanges, which seems antithetical to Bitcoin's foundation. What's the number one use case? Speculation and scams.
I have a question to people who were around and have a memory of the times because I don’t as I was not born yet. But does the crypto thing feel similar to how the internet started in the late 80’s and early 90’s before finally taking off?
I recall some videos/articles dissing internet as a passing fad at that time - does anyone who remember what it was like then think the crypto industry going through something similar?
The utility of systems like email was very quickly apparent, and while the 90s web was much more about publishing structured information than any sort of interaction, again it was pretty immediately recognised as a powerful, useful thing.
I don’t recall any negativity to “the internet”, but a lot for the dot com hype cycle, which is what I think cryptocurrency most closely resembles, but it has dragged on for years
HN is -in essence- a collection of vocal minorities. Post something on Kubernetes, and you'll get every Linux Sysadmin complaining about how it was better before the age of containers and we didn't invent anything new. Post something on cloud infrastructure management, and you'll get people somewhat angry about its cost. Post something on Electron apps, and you'll get everyone to talk about how C++ and QT apps outshine them in 2022. Post something on crypto, and, you know, it's going to be about how it's not used, too complex, or too energy inefficient.
Good news is, those topics change and become more accepted after some time. It's an endless cycle of Bash-and-Move-on. If something is "too popular", then it's obviously the worse technology ever, according to HN.
sending money to family in countries with harsher financial systems, being able to donate to causes you support without it being traceable to you (through tornado cash and zcash/monero), being able to move large amounts of money instantly with minimal fees and no intervention, etc.
I don't understand why people are so excited about computers, integrated circuits have been around since the 60's. You have companies like Intel and AMD coming out every year with announcements like it's some new thing.
I remember the silk road, and bitcoin donations to wikileaks, and bitcoin pizza. I think it all got bogged down after that with the irrational exuberance of the bull run, and everyone was too distracted to pay attention to the XT dispute when it really mattered. But it is getting better now, I am optimistic that the crash will continue and we'll see sanity returned to cryptocurrency.
The problem is fundamentally that cryptocurrency requires network effects to work. Cryptocurrency is not an easy thing to explain to most people, and it can be quite dangerous, so the best thing you can do for new users is tell them to stay away.
imo, Silk Road deserves the credit for solving Bitcoin's chicken-and-egg problem with network effects.
a single enterprising dealer could have started it off - exchange rate basically didn't matter, as long as someone was buying and selling BTC, it'd work to keep the dealer's identity private. SR tapped into a massive new market, regular people started learning about crypto so they could buy drugs, this created a flow of money through the market. honestly, I was excited to see my friends using Tor and buying BTC for cash - it's the gritty, cypherpunk dream!
whenever there's a real market opportunity like that, network effects don't seem to get in the way. Monero and Zcash got very popular from all the ransomware, though I'm admittedly less exuberant about hospitals being ransomed than drugs.
Maybe if you turned your mind off 12 years ago. Fast Zero knowledge proofs only left the research labs a handful of years ago and are now being used to power layer 2s that deliver 10 - 1000x scalability improvements. DeFi is barely 2 years old.
The consensus and scaling mechanisms being rolled out were only just created in the last few years (that's why Ethereum PoS took so long, thery were still making changes to the design as new research came out).
A. 12 years old is relatively new for tech / computer science. There aren't that many novel / widely adopted computer science ideas introduced each year.
B. This "merge" in particular utilizes innovations in computer science that were non-existent 12 years ago when the original Bitcoin whitepaper was published.
C. There continues to be loads of cutting edge CS research that is broadly applicable to the entire industry but is being spear-headed by blockchain development, for example work on Zero-Knowledge Proofs.
BLS signature aggregation was finalized as an IETF standard in 2019. It's the reason Ethereum can support over a million staking nodes.
BLS was invented back in 2001, but was expensive to verify. A paper published in 2018 showed how to verify n aggregated signatures on the same message m with just 2 pairings instead of n+1.
to be really pedantic, I'd say PoS is an economic breakthrough rather than heavy-duty computer science, strictly speaking. the actual math of the consensus algorithms seems relatively simple, the challenge is aligning all the incentives so that adversaries in a group of anonymous people have nothing to gain by subverting the rules.
I will gladly give a Turing award to whoever formally proves the safety and liveness of Gasper like Lamport did for Paxos.
I could say the same thing about reading fields I don't generally understand, and it can seem like "technobabble" because I don't understand the meaning of words they are using, since some things are written with a certain audience in mind that possesses the knowledge to understand the content, like many academic papers.
However, I don't regularly dismiss fields like that, but rather I understand that not everything is meant for me to understand without a deeper meaning. Not sure why anyone would treat the (technical) ecosystem of cryptocurrencies differently. Seems like a non-curious way of acting.
Just like I realize the problems pornography introduces to the world, but reading and speaking with engineers working at those companies are still a fruitful endeavour for me.
Genuine research states claims for the methods and discovery, making it often quite easy to work backwards from the conclusions to the theory. No such logic seems to exist in the crypto culture.
Here’s an example of a well-hyped, well-funded crypto startup being loose with words that have well-understood technical meaning outside of crypto.
> The "Helium 5G" network is instead a 4G LTE CBRS network, which right now has significant advantages over 5G but doesn't have the "5G" moniker Helium and its partners wanted for marketing. So it's just calling it 5G because, apparently, anyone can use any word to mean anything.
> In the current architecture, specific transactions, including Proof-of-Coverage and Data Transfer Accounting, are processed on-chain unnecessarily. This data bottleneck can cause efficiency issues such as device join delays and problems with data packet communications, which bloats the Network and causes slow processing times. HIP 70 proposes transferring these processes onto Oracles which will resolve these issues and further stabilize the Network.
There's a bunch of jargon, but for "Oracle" read "EC2 instance".
thought we were talking about open source community research. i'm not here to get into the debate of if crypto has a scam problem, it does. but that isn't research.
The comment you accused of “just saying things” was referring to crypto culture, rather than research specifically. I picked Helium because it was something that the web3 community glommed onto as a “successful” use case.
I wrote "no such logic [of adherence to formalized and academic research standards of claims and so on] .. doesn't exist in relation crypto culture."
I was clearly defining the entire practice of formal research as a null set within the crypto set.
Crypto culture is a compounds noun that's additive absent declination of sub distinction.
About Helium you assert that token has some kind to recognition and beau regard for- I really don't know what you're talking to but if I was sub editing your comments for clarity, I'd use the word Kudos. You claim this 5G access token has community kudos "glommed" or "attached to it" but in actually read the papers for Helium when first announced vector of investing adjacent to private 5G networks (UK Gov lets you drive truck throughout publishing network licenses awards since 2016) absolutely nothing but a more expensive convoluted and arbitrary code for the putative but barely functional exchange of on demand cellular next generation service.
If can possibly convey only one insight into what we're discussing to your everlasting benefit it sure would definitely be giving you a innate sense for why any discussions or even detailed research into things that you can build out of Lego isn't mathematical geometry or symmetry learning but model box picture building the prettiest parts you purchased.
Fully distributed consistency algorithms running on N nodes on linked list in which each node is a Turing-machine program run concurrently on N nodes, whose consistency shall also be insured, and which can write on said linked-list. Everything has absolutely tons of edge-cases related to the distributed nature of the thing to take care of.
Of course, I haven't even begun anything about the whole "crypto" part, and minimizing power usage.
Absolutely no meaning besides "linked lists", riiiight...
I thought the same at the beginning. Yet somehow I think I'm missing something a bit more complex (complicated?) than just "linked lists". I don't want to understand only the theory but also the "practice" (e.g., one could read all about distributed systems... But one really gets the gist of it until one has to deal with real world networks in the cloud or on prem, dealing with real systems)
Try to imagine you are building a new banking system, and you want it to be secure.
How would you
A) allow for secure payments without giving away something like a bank account # or debit card number
and
B) ensure that, even if those payments were secure, there was no other cheating, such as people at a bank just deciding to initiate an account with one million?
Generally speaking the way to handle those requirements is by employing cryptographic signatures and public blockchain(s), and the result is usually referred to as a cryptocurrency.
> A) allow for secure payments without giving away something like a bank account # or debit card number
You can use PKI for this. The public key is public and the private key never has to be online. That's how (most?) crypto works, but the system doesn't have to be a cryptocurrency to work like this.
> B) ensure that, even if those payments were secure, there was no other cheating, such as people at a bank just deciding to initiate an account with one million?
You can have public ledgers without crypto, there's usually no reason to do so, and good reasons not to do it (privacy, funnily enough).
Crypto is _a_ solution for this, not _the_ solution, and not even the best solution at that.
Since you are using PKI but not a blockchain, it sounds like half a cryptocurrency to me.
I didn't actually say "cryptography" for the block chain. What do you propose other than a block chain for the public ledger? And if your system uses cryptography for the transaction security and has a public ledger, why would you not call it a cryptocurrency? It would seem to be in the same category if you ledger was secure.
> What do you propose other than a block chain for the public ledger?
A csv file, SQLite file, mysql database dump, ... The blockchain is a distributed, trustless ledger, which is not necessary for most applications.
If I may paint a picture of why this matters with an example from the gaming industry - simply because I'm familiar with it: There are projects being made where the inventory/achievement/whatever system lives on a public blockchain, so that you may use/display it in another game, website, whatever.
But this already exists without blockchain! If you play Spiral Knights or Half Life on Steam, you get a hat in Team Fortress 2. There are various third-party websites where you can display your Steam/Team Fortress/Dota/LoL achievements, inventories, ... because those 'ledgers' are public already. You can trade Steam items on third-party websites (which interfaces with steam underneath) that dodge Steam's 30% store tax and will actually pay money out unlike Steam.
The above applications only require public (or even just shared) ledgers. Distributed and trustless is not a requirement for these use cases.
> And if your system uses cryptography for the transaction security and has a public ledger, why would you not call it a cryptocurrency?
You could just as easily transfer USD, GBP or EUR using such a system. The currency itself need not be 'crypto' for the system itself to use cryptography for transactions. You wouldn't publish such a ledger for obvious reasons, but technically you can.
> If you play Spiral Knights or Half Life on Steam, you get a hat in Team Fortress 2
A centralized MySQL database is not a "public ledger" in the same way that a decentralized blockchain is considered a "public ledger."
In the former, the database can be removed or censored easily by the central entity controlling it. This includes issuing API keys: the central controller decides who has permission to access, use, modify, and even retrieve the data.
In the case of a "decentralized, permissionless, public ledger" blockchain, no single entity controls the data structure.
> A centralized MySQL database is not a "public ledger" in the same way that a decentralized blockchain is considered a "public ledger."
A public ledger is just that, a public ledger. It need not be distributed nor trustless to be public. The novelty of blockchain is the distributed and trustless, but most applications (as I outlined in the example above) only need to be public.
Trust me, I understand that a database dump is very different from a blockchain ala bitcoin, in exactly the ways you described, but that doesn't mean we need to shove blockchain everywhere.
I concede with this and your earlier point, you don't need a blockchain to build a new banking system. The current banking system is evidence of that: there is no blockchain needed when you ask your bank sends your funds to another bank.
But if you want to build a system that is not wholly dependent on "banks" and centralized actors securing consensus of financial transactions - which is effectively Proof of Authority - you end up having to look at alternative consensus mechanisms like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.
The same logic applies to something like game assets. People buy and sell game assets already without a blockchain, but they do so only through centralized custodians and intermediaries.
>But this already exists without blockchain! If you play Spiral Knights or Half Life on Steam, you get a hat in Team Fortress 2. There are various third-party websites where you can display your Steam/Team Fortress/Dota/LoL achievements, inventories, ... because those 'ledgers' are public already. You can trade Steam items on third-party websites (which interfaces with steam underneath) that dodge Steam's 30% store tax and will actually pay money out unlike Steam.
That ledger is controlled/can be edited/changed by Vavle. Valve can delete your inventory and there is nothing you can do. Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of having a public ledger that no one can modify on a whim?
The first one is easily solved with one-time-use card numbers, which credit card companies have offered for well over a decade.
The second one is a dubious benefit if you're at all interested in stopping crime (eg money laundering is very easy if no party can block a transaction.)
Thats not to suggest there's no benefit to ETH, or even that crypto might be better than traditional money in some ways, but those two specific points are fairly easily argued.
> A) allow for secure payments without giving away something like a bank account # or debit card number
We have a whole bunch of these systems, like Open Banking payments in the UK, Pix in Brazil, and to a lesser extent stuff like Apple/Amazon pay and other payment proxies which don't require you to expose account numbers to merchants. Physical credit-card transactions work this way too, as the chips have built-in cryptographic processors.
> such as people at a bank just deciding to initiate an account with one million?
This is not a problem people really have. Having a limited quantity of your means of exchange is not a desirable quality in a currency.
Credit card transactions may at some point involve cryptography, but at the bottom is the credit card number, and that can still be exposed.
Cryptocurrencies don't necessarily have to operate on an (effectively) fixed supply, and actually if you are concerned about modifying the supply frequently it is possible to design a cryptocurrency that gives you much better control over that.
> Credit card transactions may at some point involve cryptography, but at the bottom is the credit card number, and that can still be exposed.
That's not really "at the bottom of things", for physical, customer-present transactions which I was talking about there. At the bottom of things are private keys stored on the card, which sign the transaction. Exposing the credit card number gets you no more than having someone's cryptocurrency wallet address, in fact a lot less as you can't look up their balance. The idea that credit card transactions are simply the handing over of a number, that a merchant can then do with whatever they like, is very outdated, though I guess still makes sense in countries that haven't moved on from magnetic strips.
Yes, plugging in your card number online to buy things is still distressingly popular for various reasons, I agree we should definitely get rid of it. And we can! Either by reforming the credit card payment process in the sort of way Apple Pay online payments and Paypal already have (though they still use the numbers themselves, it's true), or by ditching cards entirely and going with things like open banking payments and pix, which tend to have OAuth under the covers (among other measures) that don't involve 'card' infrastructure at all.
The question was how you design a system from the ground up that will "allow for secure payments without giving away something like a bank account # or debit card number". Well, I would use these sorts of technologies (that already exist and are in widespread use), rather than a blockchain.
It's amazing how superior you've let yourself feel while not addressing anything.
Was I supposed to have a revelation that cryptocurrency is the answer, in some sort of holistic come-to-jesus moment? Sorry, no, cryptocurrency is still a crapfest.
David Chaum opined then “As the Web grew, the average level of sophistication of users dropped. It was hard to explain the importance of privacy to them”https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecash
Not sure how this opinion relates to failure, but just in case, things only got worse since.
Have you seen the "Line goes up" summary by Dan Olson?
It puts the crypto sphere into context. From that many descisions and marketing practices start to make sense.
Crypto being full of grifters does not mean that the actual developers in the space are using "technobabble" in order to sound smarter without actually introducing new concepts. Crypto is actually innovating in ways that are broadly applicable to computer science in general, e.g. with all the work being done on Zero-Knowledge Proofs. And those innovations require new words because they are new concepts. I think it should be somewhat obvious to anyone that has actually looked at the space that devs are not just re-naming existing ideas.
Again, the two things are not mutually exclusive. Most people/orgs can be applying blockchain tech in ways that are not actually useful (or are actively harmful), but that doesn't mean there aren't people in that same space doing novel work that requires new terms in order to communicate with other experts/researchers/developers efficiently and effectively.
In that video he searches for the griftiest projects and treats them as defining the whole technology. Suggesting it as an answer here is like responding to a question about how eBay is engineered and showing off the scammiest eBay auction pages you can find by searching for the lowest-rated users.
I actually thought Line Goes Up was pretty well informed and well-presented. It's definitely one-sided, but I think there were only a couple of statements that I found questionable.
I work in the crypto industry, and definitely agree there's a ton of innovation in the space, but the innovations lie at an incredibly technical intersection of cryptography, game theory, and distributed networks. Get marketing, sales, and investment capital involved in the mix (which almost every project has), and you have a bundle of products being thrust in front of the public which they can't rigorously evaluate, and because everything is directly incentivized, tons of scammers, grifters, liars, and fraudsters.
When my non-technical friends ask me about crypto, I'm happy to tell them some of the things I think are really cool about it. But I don't recommend buying anything based on my perspective; it's basically gambling (even if you're well-informed)
Well yeah this is how he gets paid. It's not about being informative about a class of technology, its about generating clicks to get more patreon subscriptions and youtube ad payments.
The "innovation" in the original blockchain is that it is computationally expensive on purpose, to create "economic value". There is no computer science innovation there. Computer scientists didn't come up with the idea because it made no sense.
No, the goal wasn't to create economic value. The goal was to make it prohibitively expensive to recreate the chain and thus fool someone else. Satoshi did not say that the purpose of PoW was to "create economic value".
Proof of work blockchain is nothing technically complicated. Nobody was doing it before because it makes no sense technically. The only reason it is used is because it adds economic value. Anyone using it for other purposes could use something else but wants VC money.
Okay then tell me how you can make a distributed ledger with global consensus without a consensus mechanism like PoW or PoS even with “no economic value”
But cryptocurrency doesn't really solve these in a technically interesting way, as it's neither consistent nor available under partition. The pressure to keep the chain consistent and unified is a purely social one - your BTC is only valuable to other people on the same chain as you.
I don't know, looking into the papers that are written in crypto research, especially in academia, it seems like there is a lot of very technically interesting stuff going on, especially with zero knowledge proofs for example...
These are largely (if not completely) applications of existing zero-knowledge algorithms to blockchain data, not the application of blockchains to solve some difficult ZK problems or make a useful-outside-of-blockchain novel ZK construction.
I'll leave the question of whether it's economically interesting to economists and sociologists (though I suspect the answer is it's not at least in this regard, as the pressure to use the same non-blockchain currency seems not too different across the sweep of history). The claim was:
> It turns out that "distributed linked list" is actually a difficult problem that involves very interesting challenges
Are you saying it's easy? The PoS algorithms I've read seem quite complicated, and honestly quite interesting. Also there is a lot of academic research about this stuff, some of it private, some of it public.
I mean, I know there are people out there who think that, for example, particle physics is totally uninteresting, and you are of course free to decide that a given research area is totally uninteresting, but you can't expect others to agree. It is just your opinion
The internet is fundamentally little more than the ability to send 1s and 0s from point A to point B.
So you mean like me calling you and saying 0 1 0? Well, yeah kind of, but faster! And we can even have conference calls! It's going to change the entire world! Yeah, ok... Well, I'm going to leave now. Wait, sorry... I mean I'm going to '0 1 1 0' now. Wow, I can feel the world shifting already.
The applications of a technology often are far greater than the most simplified fundamental upon which it is built.
There is no baby. The technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better. The only thing bchains does is give ppl with a lot of money to become stakeholders, the possibility to comodify even more parts of the internet.
Thats the only upside of the technology, scam ppl for their money.
> technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better
Critics like Diehl repeat this often, but without ever referencing the solutions. What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus?
I would love to see the following succinctly solved by a non-crypto and non-blockchain solution:
- User A holds digital asset X (such as a valuable domain name "xyz.eth") and User B holds digital asset Y (such as a valuable sum of stablecoin tokens) and these users wish to exchange them in a single public + cryptographically verifiable transaction (i.e. atomic swap), without relying on the trust (and for-profit services) of a third-party escrow agent.
> What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network?
Literally any trusted central authority or database.
> Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus?
You haven't actually stated a problem here, you've described a solution in search of a problem.
> User A holds digital asset X (such as a valuable domain name "xyz.eth")
You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as strong an argument as you think it is. If we were talking about a .com domain name, no blockchain in the world will help you with that transaction.
As usual, “just trust Amazon or Google” which is centrally owned, and not peer-to-peer (distributed/decentralized), and not an answer to my question.
> You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as strong an argument as you think it is. If we were talking about a .com domain name, no blockchain in the world will help you with that transaction.
Your argument feels in bad faith, but I’ll bite: “.eth” and ENS is a valuable construct for those transacting in the network. These assets do have clear market value, even if you personally feel they shouldn’t.
Nothing is stopping a peer-to-peer network from having a central database administered by the a randomly selected group of peers, for example.
The bigger issues in pure decentralized and distributed networks in finance are around KYC/CFT etc. Who ensures compliance if there is no control about flow of funds, for example.
What you are suggesting sounds like a consensus mechanism. How do you safely choose which peers to assign this responsibility? How do you ensure it is resistant to a Sybil attack?
Suddenly the answers begin to look a lot like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.
The answer could or could not look like that. In practice people have done this many times throughout history totally without blockchains (or computers) for that matter (e.g., money transfer systems, exchanges, etc.).
If this has been done many times in a way that solves my original question (decentralized escrow), there should be some concrete examples you can point to besides blockchain/crypto systems.
Obviously, non-digital assets, but does the Hawala system fit your analog version for decentralized escrow? Early stock exchanges were sometimes created to get around existing third parties ("auctioneers") and allow the brokers to directly transact p2p. What about a credit coop (it is central, but it is also owned by all the users)?
Edit: at it's most basic, reliable coinage was kind of way to create reliable p2p abilities without risk of "double spend". Once the coins were out there, central authority didn't matter so much, i.e., "good" coins were used fair and wide beyond the coining state (e.g., Athenian tetradrachma). Funny add. in some areas people actually allow temporary double spend (so that can be another solution)...
Perhaps, but my original question was around digital assets across the internet (and ideally on a global scale). If you are trading a plush toy for a coconut the "atomic swap" could be done with each party's two hands.
In the generic form, blockchain/DLT cannot solve the double spend there either. Selling a picture for a token does not magically delete all copies or makes it impossible for me to sell it again (yes, someone could look in some blockchain, but that might not even deter another buyer - even fake goods trade).
Basically, for on-chain assets, a blockchain solves double spend and also ensures that on-chain funds/assets are correctly delivered (malicious attacks aside). This also exists outside of blockchains, for example in payment vs payment settlement in FX. Banks created CLS precisely to avoid having one part of an FX transaction settle while the other was still outstanding - so other ecosystems with immaterial goods and risky settlement found other solutions/created their own "middle man mechanic".
So how do you coordinate this so called decentralized transaction? Over the internet through SSL certs that are centrally signed? You're still putting blind trust in something.
Transactions are broadcast with RPC. Once accepted and written to the ledger (ie: after a number of confirmations), you can verify the state of the transaction via your own local node.
It is impossible to completely remove the need for trust. We trust that our computers work as expected, that our modems and routers are not compromised, that RPC endpoints and software is running as expected, that the internet infrastructure in our country is sending messages correctly.
The blockchain isn’t a catch-all solution to our need to trust things in life. But it does allow us to, say, record and alter global state without placing it in the control of a single centralized intermediary.
You trust the private companies/individuals making your hardware and protecting your communications but suddenly trusting a private escrow is heresy? Seems like a weird double standard.
> record and alter global state without placing it in the control of a single centralized intermediary
A centralized escrow is not heresy; it involves a different set of trade-offs. In some cases the decentralized escrow might be more appealing. To go back to my original example of a domain transfer, the exchange can occur in a matter of seconds or minutes within a blockchain, rather than 1 to 20 business days with escrow.com.
Never heard of Paxos, if it could achieve the same problems I've outlined earlier, I'd be curious to see it implemented.
The 20 days delay is a problem with escrow.com specifically. Domain sales are a trivially automated process that should be instant e.g. literally any domain registrar.
Paxos family of algorithms solves distributed state replication. It is the backbone of the database engines that already power most of the internet.
Namecheap: 10% commission, only works with Namecheap-registered domains, the exchange may take up to 96 hours, and then 5 days later you can withdraw these funds to PayPal (which will incur additional fees).
Compare this to, say, Tezos domains: exchange and transfer of funds settled in ~30 seconds, without any need for currency conversion, across any ".tez" domain in the network, 2.5% commission (or 0% via custom contract), no private data shared with registrar, and very low transaction fees.
Looking at Paxos: it is permissioned, lacks Sybil protection, uses leader-based rather than peer-to-peer data replication, and seems limited in how many nodes it can support. This isn't to say it's useless, but it clearly aims to solve a different set of problems than Nakamoto's consensus mechanism (and, more generally, cryptocurrency networks).
> Namecheap: 10% commission, only works with Namecheap-registered domains, the exchange may take up to 96 hours, and then 5 days later you can withdraw these funds to PayPal (which will incur additional fees).
> Compare this to, say, Tezos domains: exchange and transfer of funds settled in ~30 seconds, without any need for currency conversion, across any ".tez" domain in the network, 2.5% commission (or 0% via custom contract), no private data shared with registrar, and very low transaction fees.
You're not comparing the same products. Namecheap probably doesn't sell .tez, and you probably cannot buy a .com via Tezos. There are big differences between TLDs, I didn't even know about .tez websites until today. If I receive a .xyz link I tend to think it's a scam. If I had received a .tez link before today, I would have thought it was just a weird typo.
Beyond this, assuming equivalent products, there's no technical reason for the Tezos solution to be superior. Consider this: whatever Tezos is doing, Namecheap could do the same using the same technology (they don't have tougher requirements, maybe short of regulations, but I don't think you're talking about regulation arbitrage here anyway). They could just use a blockchain but be the sole entity allowed to interact with it.
Namecheap can get away with higher prices, so they do (it's a business). On the other hand many blockchain-based systems are highly subsidized (I don't know if that's the case for the Tezos domain system), making direct comparisons difficult.
Sure, they are apples and oranges. Namecheap will likely never be able to match these settlement times, 0-2.5% fees, data privacy, interoperability etc.
If they decide to one day sell crypto domains like ‘.eth’ and ‘.tez’, they will be entering an extremely competitive market; and compete against marketplaces that trade any valid NFT (including domains) like Objkt.com and OpenSea, with commissions around 2.5%, no need for data sharing, and instant settlements. They would also be competing against custom contracts and OSS tools which may take no fees, and other directly peer-to-peer transactions like I outlined in my OP.
The point I’m trying to illustrate here is that there are reasons for choosing a decentralized and peer-to-peer system of digital assets & ownership over a purely centralized system, and blockchain is currently an ideal tech for this application.
Again, whatever technical advantage Tezos might have in terms of efficiency, nothing prevents Namecheap from using a database instead of a blockchain and reaching higher efficiency.
You're assuming that the fees you pay Namecheap are representative of their costs. You could also say that Apple will never be able to compete with mid-range Android phones because iPhones are so expensive,. The point of a business is to make money, and the margin represents a big share of the price, so you can't just forget about it. The price / fees don't necessarily reflect anything about the business costs, especially in tech.
Blockchain-based solutions are usually cheap because they're either subsidized (like Uber was very cheap because it was just not profitable), because they offer a strictly worse product (almost no company wants a .tez) or a combination of both.
> User A holds digital asset X (such as a valuable domain name "xyz.eth") and User B holds digital asset Y (such as a valuable sum of stablecoin tokens) and these users wish to exchange them in a single public + cryptographically verifiable transaction (i.e. atomic swap), without relying on the trust (and for-profit services) of a third-party escrow agent.
OK, how do they do this? Let's say X has 1M gold in World of Warcraft, and Y has 100M Gil in Final Fantasy XIV. How can X and Y use a blockchain to exchange these atomically?
If both assets are defined by the same blockchain protocol, a contract can be written that provides both users the ability to deposit the two assets into it. Only once both assets have been deposited will the atomic swap occur. And at any point before this, a deposit could be safely withdrawn (ie: if other party backs out of deal).
Edit: if your question is “how does this technically look in practice”, here is an example: [1]
You claimed that blockchains solve the problem of atomically transferring digital assets. I gave an example of two digital assets I may like to transfer.
Please tell me how Ethereum solves the problem of exchanging WoW gold for FF14 Gil in a trust less manner.
The problem of transferring digital goods controlled by the same entity in a trust less manner is trivial and solved by many technologies predating Bitcoin. I can already trustlessly sell a piece of copper in World of Warcraft for gold without involving any other third party.
This is a pretty stupid argument; WoW and FF14 gold are not assets defined on the network. The goal of Ethereum is to record Ethereum-based assets (e.g. ERC20, ERC721), not to record the exchange of every asset on the web.
> I can already trustlessly sell a piece of copper in World of Warcraft for gold without involving any other third party.
In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the state and data.
> In this case the third party is Blizzard Entertainment, who can control the state and data.
And in the case of two Ethereum based assets, the third party is the Ethereum network, which can be forked to control the state and data (as it was after the DAO fiasco).
I think more importantly the integration with Ethereum network is done by third parties, so even if WOW hooks into eth, your eth assets are worthless without depending on blizzard to maintain that integration. So what was gained?
"And in the case of two Ethereum based assets, the third party is the Ethereum network, which can be forked to control the state and data"
ETH Classic still exists, but the community came to the agreement that forking was the best way to deal with the issue. The only person who lost on that agreement was the hacker. Where as Blizzard can do whatever it wants. Surely you can see how a forked blockchain was a more democratic process than a centralized database.
A company like Blizzard that might define ERC20WoWGold can fork the blockchain to try and alter a record on their contract, but it would have little effect.
A successful fork requires a consensus across the majority of developers and users in the network.
> What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus?
“We don’t need peer-to-peer digital assets when we can just trust [insert major tech corporation]” tends to be the common answer to my earlier question a couple comments up.
My original comment[1] is responding to the notion that crypto's technical problems are better solved by non-blockchain alternatives. The most common alternative is placing trust in an Amazon or Google database, or another tech corporation like Namecheap or escrow.com (for domain exchanges, as in my example). Banks do not typically manage domain name exchanges.
And believers always pull of this subtle shift in frame: you bring in trust-less peer to peer decentralised networks, and of course there's no other solution, because it's a setting invented by the same people who came up with cryptocurrency. The rest of the world relaxes the trust-less assumption and talks about Web of Trust, about decentralised roots of trust, federation etc.
And this is a rhetorical technique: When we talk about economics, we talk about business or human problems.
But the trustless-online-decentralised-ledger problem is a technical one.
So the GP was saying "there is no business problem that crypto solves that hasn't been solved in a better way already. And then the crypto-bros come in and say "nuh-uh! If you for whatever reason want to run digital assets on physical infrastructure that needs to be maintained off chain without trusting anyone (say, the person the network depends on for maintaining the power infrastructure) then this is the only solution!".
YES! Well done. This is even useful, in a horrible hellscape where dog eats dog, everyone carries their own portable nuclear reactor and uses unstoppable point to point laser communication to run the internet and we forego all of the efficiency gains offered by using social consensus and democratic decision making to build webs of trust and centralised infrastructure with checks and balances (for example, by having the root certificates expire and be re-legitimised by some social ceremony repeatedly...say in an election). But in the real world, at some point everyone wants to build a society, put some basic trust down and improve living standards. And while people like Putin and the Kims and warlords still alive can fuck this up
1. They generally only survive because they are leeching of the more functional parts of society which uses trust (not unlike crypto with its Ponzi structure)
2. Crypto won't save you from them because they'll physically take away your electricity and/or torture you to get your keys
So what problems that aren't technical toy problems but real business and coordination problems in realistic settings (remember, if you have a state you trust to protect your private property rights, you can probably also use that to run the root certificate and organise the ledger) does crypto solve again?
Consider a simple answer: my ENS domain is one of the few digital assets I own (and have “digital ownership” over) that is not inextricably linked to a single corporately-owned user account (that ultimately has full control over the asset).
Perhaps you do not see a value in that, or do not feel the risks outweigh this benefit, which is fine. We are acting on a different set of interests.
What is is it good for compared to a traditional domain? If it's censorship resistance,if you break the laws of your country using it, how will you hide from the police trying to force you to take down the content?
The whole point of the distributed ledger is that no single entity can “take away” ownership of, say, an ERC721 (NFT, which domains also are) without access to my keys. Websites can de-list this but anybody can still see it clearly indexed in the blockchain state as the system is distributed.
I am not doing this to be censorship resistant from police (who can force me to give up my keys).
The point is that, rather than an asset owned by X company or Y bank, it is owned by me (in a decentralized system). eg: A tech company being acquired or shuttered will have no bearing on my ownership of and ability to transfer this asset.
you point an ENS name to an address (a public key hash). in a system built on private/public keys, it can be useful as an alias. the “IP”, or address in this case, is my own, because it is directly generated from a 24 word seed phrase.
this naming system has value for myself and the millions of other users interacting within the network.
But unless you have a completely independent physical layer, that network and alias is only reachable via an IP you rent or buy from the normal Systems. So what's the added value once you have that IP pointing somewhere? Like, if everything you can do with the ENS depends on an IP, which can do the same things as an IP, what's the use case? You are already dependent on the system, without an avenue out, what's the advantage of using an ENS vs something in the system?
.eth is a TLD for crypto addresses (the system is called ENS). Instead of saying, send it to 0x827DCAB38F00624466A99211e9c5a48b9D6Ec14D or whatever I can say "send it to myname.eth". The ENS is an NFT, so all the NFT infrastructure can be used to manage it. NFT's are generic digital assets so any marketplace can do the swap. The major downside is that gas on eth is SUPER expensive, when I regestered my ENS name, it cost $5 for the name, and $200 for gas. On the other hand, ETH is an obsolete chain (there is a v2 coming, and L2's are starting to come on, but V1 is obsolete... lets be honest), and some new more modern chains solve the problem better. I have a .AVAX name (not fully deployed yet) which cost $15 for the name (which has a weird public notice period thing, kind of interesting) and $.15 for gas. Again, it's an NFT, so I can use any of the numerous marketplaces to buy and sell it.
Every banking system ever? At vastly lower energy waste, at higher transaction rates, and with all the legal protection of centuries of well developed needs.
A bank is not a central authority any more than large mining pools are central authorities. Or China (when it controlled enough BTC to double spend at will).
The banking system is vastly distributed. Trust is a giant network of accountants, central banks, regulators, investors, and lots more that help ensure there is no double spending. There are checks all throughout the system, ledgers, reports, audit trails, and, unlike BTC, when something is actually stolen, lots of protections and methods to claw back stolen money.
BTC can be double spent via majority control, so double spend protection is at best a statistical claim, just like real banking.
A large problem with Bitcoin is developers were unaware of modern (or even ancient) banking and money systems and have tried to reinvent simple money with all the same problems that mankind moved from millennia ago.
Then people unaware of the why of modern money systems think crypto solves an important problem that modern economies and users don't care about, while ignoring all the problems modern systems solved as if they don't exist.
And honestly, in all my life, I have never heard of anyone in the normal banking system double spend. So chalk one more up to the Bitcoin make believe event crowd. How many double spend events have you performed in your entire life via normal banking?
He is a dictator who controls money flowing in and out of country, using the tax revenue to fund his regime and wage war. He can't tax or block bitcoin payments, or steal proceeds by forcing foreign currency sale at a very unfair exchange rate.
Bitcoin helps live without paying taxes and fund opposition without repercussions. In fact, cryptocurrency payments are the only way for Russians to fund anti-Putin opposition. So anyone who says that cryptocurrencies are useless, please, kindly, stop saying this nonsense. If you are lucky to be born in a first world country you simply don't know how easily banking can be used to suffocate a person in a (lawless) cashless society. Bitcoin is a hedge against that, and a powerful one.
What technical solution do you have for multiple parties needing to transact where they do not trust each other and cannot depend on a third party or the court system for dispute resolution? I'll wait.
If you’re transacting with a bunch of people that you do not trust then the payment rails are the least of your problems.
Your comment just feels like typical crypto-booster vague handwaving to me - can you give an actual example of such a situation where the existing third parties that alreayd exist to solve these kind of problems cannot be used? Be concrete.
The typical answer is "just trust a third-party service" which side-steps the constraints in the question.
FWIW there is a variety of reasons you may not want to use a service like escrow.com — they take a cut of the exchange, operate as a for-profit business in a particular US-based jurisdictions, only operate on a limited set of currencies, request personal/private data sharing, and tend to settle the transaction in days, not seconds or minutes.
Your example only works because you're considering an asset that lives in the blockchain itself. So it doesn't apply to anything physical, as in this case, you need a trusted channel to transfer the asset anyway, and a blockchain doesn't solve that.
Even considering only these digital assets, you have an implicit notion of trust. The xyz.eth representation on the Ethereum blockchain is considered valuable because most people think it does represent what people expect to find at xyz.eth. But the ICANN can change this at any moment by adding .eth to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_dom... and this will all be gone.
Humans don't live in a blockchain, and blockchain rules don't apply outside of it, so you can't solve this boundary problem. Or rather, you solve it by trusting whoever's in charge of this boundary.
The whole point is peer to peer transfer of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain. The goal is not “how to transfer a physical asset.”
These assets do have market value (despite your own personal feeling on what they “should” be worth) and so users do wish to find ways of interacting with and trading them without an intermediary.
The TLD/ICANN is irrelevant, as “.eth” is a construct for Ethereum clients, not HTTPS clients.
And yes, we build trust of, say, an immutable contract address originated by a human, and continue to trust in it years later because (a) the ledger is incredibly expensive to dismantle and (b) we can cryptographically verify this on our own local node.
> The whole point is peer to peer transfer of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain. The goal is not “how to transfer a physical asset.”
Yes I understood where you were going. Just pointing out that the scope of the problem you're solving is way smaller than that of a generic transaction, to the point that it has very little relevance for pretty much anything real.
> The TLD/ICANN is irrelevant, as “.eth” is a construct for Ethereum clients, not HTTPS clients.
What do you think would happen to the value of the xyz.eth domain registered on Ethereum if ICANN decided to have .eth as a TLD and somebody made a website on a xyz.eth reachable natively via mainstream browsers?
This value would decrease, independently of what actually happens on the blockchain. Value doesn't exist independently from the real world.
Trusting a certain smart contract about what's at xyz.eth rather than another is also arbitrary and is a matter of social capital, again something that's not embedded within the blockchain.
The assets are “real” in the same way domain names are “real.” These are social constructs, maintained by social consensus.
It is very easy to come to a shared consensus about what address “mattdesl.eth” points to, because the history is recorded on-chain, and can be verified locally. I’m sure the exact valuation of this domain will go up and down, but as long as the the chain and network continues to exist, the asset holds value within the network, regardless of what occurs with ICANN/TLDs.
> of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain. The goal is not “how to transfer a physical asset.”
Even with "purely digital assets" you have the trouble with oracles that provide you with data and whom you must explicitly trust, and with trust in general (when someone sells you NFTs that may or not be stolen from someone else).
The sum total of "p2p transfer of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain between parties [without intermediaries - d.] that don't trust each other" is a very minuscule part of a very minuscule subset of a very minuscule number of activities that people engage in.
I'm not sure what point you are making. Using a blockchain doesn't mean you no longer need trust. But it can be used as a tool to help build social consensus about certain digital state/records without placing the data in control of a single centralized entity. Same discussion was had here[1].
As a simbling comment desctibed it, "the scope of the problem you're solving is way smaller than that of a generic transaction, to the point that it has very little relevance for pretty much anything real."
The scope of the problem is basically what is happening on Uniswap (peer-to-peer swapping of ERC20 tokens) and Opensea (peer-to-peer swapping of ERC721/1155 tokens), which together account for the vast majority of Ethereum's daily contract activity.
These discussions often circle back to the notion that USDC, ENS, or any other ERC20 or ERC721 (NFT) is "not real" and therefore this problem is not worthy of study.
And yet nobody has an issue with Namecheap marketplace—a centralized ledger that manages token balances and virtual property exchange (domain names), without these token credits/debits ever being realized in your bank account (i.e. you can transact within their virtual dollar system without withdrawing funds to PayPal).
> The scope of the problem is basically what is happening on Uniswap
So,
1. "a very minuscule subset of a very minuscule number of activities that people engage in", to quote myself, and
2. flash loans and "HFT" using speculative virtual tokens, so very much a circular reference
> And yet nobody has an issue with Namecheap marketplace
1. First time I heard of it
2. It doesn't pretend to be "redefining finance", or "being a revolution", or "destroying traditional banking", or whatever other bullcrap comes out of "DeFi" and other crypto
3. Never does it say anything about "virtual dollars", all prices are listed in real money, and the deposits you may make into your account are also real money
> And yet nobody has an issue with Namecheap marketplace—a centralized ledger
If nobody has an issue with it, why are you talking about an alternative to it? What's the benefit? Also note that Namecheap does sell domains that are then recognized by many other entities, it's not a "virtual property" that only leaves within Namecheap's system, it's something you end up owning in the legal world.
The "not real" argument is that you change your trust model as soon as you reach boundaries. Uniswap etc. are trustless, but only up to the point where the assets traded become real and are redeemed outside of the blockchain and some legal entity can actually back up the value of the tokens you traded. One of the selling points of Ethereum is that you don't need to trust anyone; if that's not the case, as we both agree, what's left? Why do you need Uniswap to be trustless when you rely on legal entities to ensure that what you're trading has some non-fictitious value?
You wrote:
> it can be used as a tool to help build social consensus about certain digital state/records without placing the data in control of a single centralized entity
If I try to parse this, you substitute some blockchain to the laws usually ruling relationships between entities, and instead of a judge, you use smart contracts to decide what happens. But again the scope is too limited to be useful, because the real world doesn't live in a blockchain, and the smart contracts will only rule a tiny part of these relationships. That's the token redemption example above.
> If nobody has an issue with it, why are you talking about an alternative to it?
this entire far-too-long discussion I’ve participated in stemmed from the notion that blockchain’s goals are already better solved by existing solutions. I asked for any that solves peer-to-peer decentralized escrow of a digital asset like a domain name; so far the primary response have been “you don’t need to do that since you can trust [centralized company].”
I’m gonna have to step out of this thread at this point but thanks for the discussion!
> so far the primary response have been “you don’t need to do that since you can trust [centralized company].”
It's more like: you can try, but current blockchain-based systems don't succeed at this, because you do end up trusting one or several entities (you wrote "Using a blockchain doesn't mean you no longer need trust."). So even blockchain-based solutions don't solve this problem, and if they don't, it's unclear what benefit they bring, even years after.
I always thought the grocery supply chain was a good example use case. Multiple parties (seed origin, farmer, fertilizer manufacturer and/or dispenser, pesticide manufacturer and/or crop duster, harvester, transporter(s), grocery association, grocer) who all handle any given tomato, all with incentive and opportunity to lie to some other members along the chain, but not to their immediate neighbors. Plus, even who the members ARE is not necessarily known from the beginning (eg the destination country for produce in the EU is decided based on market conditions when it's already en route). And the end consumer (or their representative in the grocery store) cares about the entire origin chain. (By which definition(s) is this tomato organic? How was this chicken treated? What was this cow fed? What's the real carbon cost? Etc)
In order to solve this in a centralized way, you need to sign up and authenticate literally all the farm organizations in Europe, and all the competing grocers and transport companies. They all need to sign that they trust the third party service to be a fair and neutral record keeper... the third party company which has enormous financial incentive to cheat, on behalf of literally all its customers.
But with distributed ledgers with attestation, the record is unfalsifiable. Each tomato can have its own blockchain with attested entries from each fertilization, spray, and transporter, all added and attested at the point where lying is hard and the value of the lie is low.
You could achieve this with paper and signatures for each tomato, but it would be a lot of paper.
This is a very good example of the typical argument that shows the critical flaw.
The flaw is that there is never any way to actually tie the real world to the Blockchain. It's literally impossible. You can have all the fancy mathematically proven Blockchain records you like, but it's just impossible to tie that to an actual tomato or actual pesticide.
We have track and trace system already for crops and they have the same problem: all the paperwork in the world can't prevent someone from, say, weighing a box of tissues instead of the box of cigars you intend to sell. In the end you need to trust someone.
I'm a huge blockchain advocate, but I 100% think this is an important point people need to understand. The blockchain is a great solution for pure digital assets. Its an awful solution for physical stuff.
I think this is a holdover of thought from bitcoin. Bitcoin wanted to be a currency for our real world economy. It never became more than that for many reasons. ETH (and now more modern chains) have become more than currencies. They are digital economies. Physical items are foreign goods in a foreign jurisdiction the local economy has little control over.
Even within crypto, different L1's are like foreign economies, and moving assets cross chain is complicated.
How do you tie real world tomatoes to NFT tomatoes? Who verifies this? How do you tie an NFT of a grassfed chicken to a real world grassfed chicken? Who verifies these chickens are actually grass fed?
> all with incentive and opportunity to lie to some other members along the chain, but not to their immediate neighbors
And how does blockchain prevent them from lying?
> you need to sign up and authenticate literally all the farm organizations in Europe, and all the competing grocers and transport companies. They all need to sign that they trust the third party service to be a fair and neutral record keeper
Instead they all need to sign up onto the blockchain and lie directly on the blockchain
> Each tomato can have its own blockchain with attested entries from each fertilization, spray, and transporter, all added and attested at the point where lying is hard
Fertilizer put on the record that tomatos are fertilized.
Sprayer put on the blockchain that tomatos were sprayed.
Transporter put on the record that tomatos were transported.
You arrive at the shop to find rotten potatoes instead.
How did blockchain help?
Also note that in this current world that is so horrible according to you you arrive at a shop to find tomatos that have passed all inspections and have been delivered to you. What eaxctly does blockchain intend to solve?
That's why we have things like paypal and temporary virtual credit cards.
Many kinds of fraud attack the fallible human element, not technology. And blockchains cannot change that, as you can see with a glance at crypto news.
Trust is a short-cut for the complexities the physical world presents. But in a purely digital world you can build things that doesn't NEED the short-cut. And that's a new capability. It let's you build things not possible before. DeFi exists because trustless transactions are possible. Not everything can and should be trustless, it's just a tool not a new society. But it's SUPER useful.
Sure, but it also makes it not an answer to the question which was asked.
And just because the technical solution to a technical problem might not be (/isn’t) a good/practical solution to the practical problem that the technical problem is inspired by, doesn’t make interest in the technical solution illegitimate.
That only holds if you donate your BTC. In practice you want to buy something with it. How do you guarantee that you do receive the thing you're buying once you've given your BTC?
You need to trust this other channel through which you're receiving it.
The more i've tried to hack with smart contracts for physical stuff, the more I realize that's not what it's good for. But if you stop thinking of the physical world, and only think of the digital world, and you use a modern chain (I use avax). It works pretty good. I think there's a few missing pieces of infrastructure still, but the people who "are in it to build, and not for the money" (I include myself in this) stick around to build what I consider the first purely digital economy.
Ok, then how can I buy a World of Warcraft mount from another player I don't trust by using my Final Fantasy 14 money and a block chain?
Or, if that's too silly, how do I buy a .com domain name in exchange for some ETH, assuming neither I nor the seller of the domain name trust each other?
These are all digital goods, so can avax help me do it?
The games needs to be built to allow this, however here's how it works for games that do implement it.
This is using the C-Chain. Most games now would use a subnet (which is like a parallel blockchain integrated with the mainnet, but cheaper transactions)
1. Dev Create an ERC721 contract for WoW items
2. Dev Create an ERC20 contract for Final Fantasy 14 money
3. ANYONE can Create a liquidity pair for the Final Fantasy ERC20 with AVAX in one or more of the numerous dex's (since i'm using avax, probably using Trader Joe's)
4. Players Swap Final Fantasy money for AVAX, use AVAX to purchase WOW NFT at any of the numerous NFT marketplaces.
Sure, if I'm allowed to change the games, I can link them even without a block chain. Transacting digital assets on a particular market (be it a single blockchain or Steam or the WoW Auction House) is a solved problem, and is not helped in any clear way by adding a blockchain in the middle.
"Sure, if I'm allowed to change the games, I can link them even without a block chain."
The game should be integrated with the blockchain directly, if I was unclear I apologize. That means, when you open the game, you need to use your wallet to connect to the game. You don't have a "Steam" account or whatever, you have your Web3 identity.
"Transacting digital assets on a particular market (be it a single blockchain or Steam or the WoW Auction House) is a solved problem"
1 of those things is not like the other. The blockchain isn't "a market", it's an economy. An economy with multiple markets... and it's your choice. Steam is a single market, and I have no choices.
If your assets are on the Avalanche blockchain (that's the avax I keep talking about) you can choose to use Trader Joes (https://traderjoexyz.com/trade#/) Pangolin (https://app.pangolin.exchange/#/swap) Sushiswap (https://app.sushi.com/swap) or one of the hundred other choices. If you want to buy items you can use NFT Trade (https://nftrade.com/) Kalao (https://marketplace.kalao.io/) or one of the other hundred choices popping up. It's an economy with choices and competition. Steam is a centralized market that sets the rules, and you either have to take it or leave it. They get to charge a premium for that privledge, and there's no possibility of competition to check that privledge.
Saying you prefer steam, is like saying you'd prefer to buy popcorn from a movie theatre over a grocery store.
> The game should be integrated with the blockchain directly, if I was unclear I apologize.
But it could just as easily be integrated with a non-blockchain central authority.
And you are still trusting their code to integrate it, so you haven't solved any trust issue. Nothing stops their code from saying "asset transferred" when the asset wasn't actually transferred.
Blockchain solves nothing here. All of this could be accomplished just as well or better without it.
"But it could just as easily be integrated with a non-blockchain central authority."
Sure, you could. But then you'e in a feudal arrangement instead of a free economy.
"And you are still trusting their code to integrate it, so you haven't solved any trust issue"
The tokens are trustless, the transaction of those tokens are trustless. How the are tokens used has nothing to do with my ability to freely trade the tokens.
"Blockchain solves nothing here. All of this could be accomplished just as well or better without it."
Well, perhaps you're just not trying to have a good faith discussion. Because I pointed out what it solves, and you keep ignoring it. The blockchain creates the ability to have a free market with many participants without having to be under the control of a central authority. Free markets are unquestionably better, and so I'd say "accomplished just as well or better" is just flat out wrong. A centralized service is not better unless you disagree that a free market economy is superior to feudalism.
> The tokens are trustless, the transaction of those tokens are trustless. How the are tokens used has nothing to do with my ability to freely trade the tokens.
The point of the transaction is to use the item, not to own the token. If the item can't be used, then you paid money for nothing (since obviously no one else is going to buy it off you either).
Sure there are countries with no functioning legal systems and extreme levels of corruption but most people affected by that would probably have a hard time using blockchain technologies directly and would have to rely on 3rd parties anyway.
I feel the same, the dayli meetings are super important for fast iteration. Sayinf you dont need those is implying there is no outside input that yould improve your work. Wich is only true when your task is so sepperated from everyone that you could effectively get your own one man team.
The easiest solution you can imagine. These are 90% of the time cute tricks that narrow down the scope of the solution so far it makes the surrounding code unmaintainable after a year.
I learned to call those people "Ricks" they are best used in walled of projects that are not expected to change. Not useable in cooperation.