Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

approximatelycorrect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 340 posts

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#301

Post by Nursie »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #297
Nursie wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As long as the way the population would democratically prefer the case to be judged is captured/modeled accurately by the law, the formal mechanical law is suitable. I would hate to live in your world. The law is the way it is because it governs humans, and because legislation cannot capture every aspect of all facets of the law. Mechanical application of the law is a pretty dreadful idea.

the transition towards mechanical would of course prompt an enormous amount of decisions to be settled democratically (since we have been doing them ad hoc all the time), but the democratic decision is a decision by humans , and all the following similar cases would mechanically follow the same ruling, until either the population changes its mind (through the democratic process) or the population realizes it misforma…

I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law, nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. I would use my democratic mandate to vote against such a thing.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#302

Post by fastball »

zaphar wrote: post #133
fastball wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have the stats, but I actually would guess that robbery is way more common than hacking personal computers which results in the retrieval of useful information.

I make it a habit not to bet. But if I were a betting man I'd take you up on that. Hacking personal computers is a huge blackmarket industry and it costs society a lot of money. The average person (i.e. not you or me) don't even know they've been hacked and are just joined to some botnet without their knowledge. But a hacked computer is a hacked computer and if the hacker want's the bitcoin wallet they can get it. Go…

Hardware wallets?

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#303

Post by DoctorOetker »

Nursie wrote: post #301
DoctorOetker wrote: post #297

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the transition towards mechanical would of course prompt an enormous amount of decisions to be settled democratically (since we have been doing them ad hoc all the time), but the democratic decision is a decision by humans , and all the following similar cases would mechanically follow the same ruling, until either the population changes its mind (through the democratic process) or the population realizes it misforma…

I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law, nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. I would use my democratic mandate to vote against such a thing.

>but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law

Neither can the current system, so any analysis would have to be comparative. I do believe we can approach such a state much quicker and more accurately through formalization.

>nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing.

Was the formalization transistion from unwritten laws to written laws a good thing in your view? What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible?

With mechanical application I only refer to the end result taken after the verifier (judging algorithm, i.e. MetaMath or other) as a result of either a passing proof of guilt provided by prosecutor, or passing of a proof of innocence provided by defense. There is no imperative algorithm that maps cases to sentences, thats not how the law can work due to combinatorial explosion. The law is like philosophy or mathematics.

The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it)

btw I enjoy this discussion, so if you can come up with more criticisms or examples please do!

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#304

Post by munchbunny »

rusk wrote: post #250
Kadin wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that is a possible application of "blockchain technology", given a broad-enough definition of what constitutes "blockchain technology". But the consensus-based proof-of-work (or proof of storage, or proof of memory, etc.) models aren't really necessary or even clearly desirable. There are timestamping systems dating from long before "blockchain" (at least 1990, probably before) which involve sequential hashes, w…

> sequential hashes, with each subsequent hash also including the previous one Isn't this "in principal" what a blockchain is? Just because they didn't call it a blockchain back then doesn't mean it isn't. You could also consider Git to be a blockchain of sorts. What distinguishes Bitcoin in particular is proof of work which provides a means by which distributed untrusted actors can transact in a trusted way. The act…

The answer to that is tricky because it depends on intent.

Taking an expansive definition of blockchain as a log of sequential, cryptographically verifiable transactions seems okay enough. At the point where we're nitpicking what is/isn't blockchain, that's not a useful exercise, because the real question is whether this is the right solution for the right problem.

On the other hand, "blockchain" is a highly loaded term, and choosing to label something on the margins "blockchain" means diffusing the legitimacy of application onto the marketing term, or vice versa. In that sense, I'd be hesitant to lump this marginal example into "blockchain" specifically instead of just "cryptography stuff".

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#305

Post by ghthor »

greggman wrote: post #260
ghthor wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need that text file signed by your previous doctors, and your new doctor needs to be able to verify the public keys of your previous doctors using some type of PKI. You also need to locally manage your health records data, its storage can't be easily automated and paid for. Blockchain solves all of those problems in one nice bundle, it provides PKI, signed log of changes, and distributed automated storage. That's…

As far as I understand the point is supposed to be the blockchain is distributed trust. The longest chain = proof of most work = the truth. The only reason someone can't basically change the entire history of the blockchain is because no one has 51% control of the chain. The only reason no one has 51% control of the chain in bitcoin is because so many people are mining it to earn coins. But, for medical records there…

Using bitcoin(I know less about how to store data into bitcoin transactions) you can execute a transaction and store a small piece of data that would be a reference to a larger blob of data, say an IPFS hash to an encrypted MRI image and the doctors notes. You use bitcoin to store the log of changes using reference to some type of immutable data store. It's imperfect, but can be built. The value add of the bitcoin here is it's extremely hard to create a false history and tell that as the real story.

Ethereum would be easier to understand and see what's going on because we have a reasonably readable contract language. You'd still likely need to store larger blobs of data using an external immutable data store, and those blobs wouldn't be automatically distributed and backed up. But you could pay for distributed backups in an automated way using ether. Lots of people working on this last part, which drastically reduces the potential size of the blockchain because it will only be afordable to log blob references and numerical values.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#306

Post by ghthor »

zaphar wrote: post #296
ghthor wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that the source code for the EVM is open source and auditable. And I wouldn't use a smart contract that isn't the same, open source and auditable. This is my realm of expertise, this is how I think about systems and interactions, it's my turf so I have far higher levels of trust executing a smart contract then walking through the TSA scanners.

Yes, but our demographic is a very small part of the wider target audience so what makes sense for us does not at all make sense for them. Any solution that requires the market as a whole to level up to our level of expertise has the same problem for them that we have when walking through TSA scanners. The only difference is that now you are the TSA which again only shifted the problem. It didn't solve it.

Thats where web of trust comes in and empowers us, the engineers, compared to the past. Let's say my relative is having an issue with her mortgage, something that should be fairly straightforward to codeify in a smart contract. In the past, I'd have to shrug my shoulders and help her with a human communication problem. In the future I might be able to actually inspect the code of her mortgage. This allows me to assert my understanding about how it works. I can say, I know it's correct or I know it's incorrect. This is in contrast to modern day where it's much harder for me to understand, therefore I would likely shrug my shoulders and say, I don't know, you'll have to contact an expert.

It's similar to another example. I moved my mom over to use Linux as her operating system. I now know, for a fact, that her system is secure and updated. I trust the distribution to audit and package software safely, therefore my stress levels are much much lower and I barely get technical support questions from my mother, compared to before.

Smart contracts enable this same level of trust to develop for complex protocols between people & computers, like mortgages, insurance, DNS, software package building and distibution systems. It allows for advances levels of trust to develop in the system itself, and as an engineer I can now transmit that trust through my web of relationships which is how it reach and benefit non technical users. In a way, it allows for engineers to take more responsibility for the systems we live within, versus today where you have to pay me to give a shit and I try to take as little responsibility for the systems I support because I know they are fucked up and broken and I don't want to be the one on the hook when someone gets hurt by the system I and responsible for.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#307

Post by tramGG »

reilly3000 wrote: post #34

Anonymous blockchain sounds like fertile soil for the emergence of simple, autonomous AI. Howard Bloom's cosmology centers around Replication Strategy and Iteration. The medium of blockchain provides convenient and abundant opportunity for both. Imagine a smart contract that could sort of recursively fuel itself with prediction market earnings, and clone itself programmatically. A relatively simple 'mother' script co…

You need to read what Synapse AI is doing. They're suggesting building this in their networks.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#308

Post by Nursie »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #303
Nursie wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry, but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law, nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. I would use my democratic mandate to vote against such a thing.

>but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law Neither can the current system, so any analysis would have to be comparative. I do believe we can approach such a state much quicker and more accurately through formalization. >nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. Was the formalization transistion from unwritten laws to written laws a good thing in your view?…

> What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible?

Inflexibility. We humans are squishy and imprecise. Which is why the law is unlike mathematics, and I think efforts to make it so and to remove humans from its application are fundamentally misguided.

> The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them during a trial after a tragedy thus potentially preventing it (i.e. finding a proof that the law simultaneously guarantees a right for a certain deed, yet also forbids it)

My thoughts here go more to mitigating circumstances rather than inconsistencies. These are varied to the point of the near infinite, and people can judge these better than algorithms ever could as people can infer, empathise and extrapolate.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#309

Post by 1996 »

nradov wrote: post #166
1996 wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the point: the fed can conjure unlimited credit out of thin air. Cryptocurrencies can't. The limitation becomes a feature: debt can't be inflated way. We are one major crisis away from people preferring an asset that can't be inflated, or forcefully converted by executive order, under threat of confiscation. When that happens, you will be right: by Gresham law, people will prefer paying for stuff (inc…

Of course cryptocurrency debt can be inflated away. Fork the blockchain, or switch to another one entirely. Who's going to force me to pay? It's just bits.

you assume people care about the fork. if people dont and only want the original, or if the smartcontract is not updated to allow the fork at a lesser rate, you're stuck

But nobody ever forces you to pay- the goods and services just stop coming your way, or you lose your collateral.

Inflating the debt is not a problem because of the small consumers, but the government. Seignorage tax affects the small consumers.

Re: The Blockchain Bubble Will Pop, What Next?

#310

Post by DoctorOetker »

Nursie wrote: post #308
DoctorOetker wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but I don't believe we can get to a state where every edge case is encoded by law Neither can the current system, so any analysis would have to be comparative. I do believe we can approach such a state much quicker and more accurately through formalization. >nor that mechanical application of such would be a good thing. Was the formalization transistion from unwritten laws to written laws a good thing in your view?…

> What makes quotability from a written corpus of law not horrible, but further formalization horrible? Inflexibility. We humans are squishy and imprecise. Which is why the law is unlike mathematics, and I think efforts to make it so and to remove humans from its application are fundamentally misguided. > The society could unconditionally reward people for detecting inconsistencies in the law before we run into them…

>Inflexibility.

I think the iron answer from a judge is less flexible than the possibility to start a democratic petition against a scandalous oversight in the formalized law...

I was trying not to bring up mitigating circumstances, since many people don't see a good reason for their existence (I do!), but mitigating circumstances is actually one of the reasons I want formalization! The way society treats the law is highly oversimplified with one-liners like "the law is the law" and "innocent until proven guilty" and "every convicted person is guaranteed a just trial because the prosecution needs to prove their case"

But if mitigating circumstances should be brought into consideration, then in theory you can't convict a person with a certain level of punishment until you have also proven that there were no mitigating circumstances, and I am not aware of any binding rule to try and locate or identify the mitigating circumstances.

I.e. allow me to call a perpetrator "less guilty" if there are mitigating circumstances; if the prosecution wins a case in the current world without mitigating circumstances ever being brought up by the defense (because they might not be aware), we currently accept the "proof" by the prosecution, even though the punishment may be unjustly harder.

I.e. the idea that the burden of proof in the current system lies totally with the prosecution is false, because the prosecution is not trying to diminish the sentence of the defense.

By formalizing we would start a discussion on how exactly to formalize mitigating circumstances.

I might choose to commit a crime against the (much older) perpetrators of my youth trauma, and while in practice I might get mitigating circumstances, I currently have no such guarantee...

Post reply on HN