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

Stellar Smart Contracts

stellar.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#31

Post by hannasanarion »

vntok wrote: post #26
Nursie wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ask for a check/bank transfer and pray it doesnt bounce Why would a bank transfer bounce? These are free and effectively instant in most places I know of now. > I just saved myself a 10% fee You probably had to pay network fees though. Once again, the blockchain-positive argument seems to stem from outdated ideas about traditional banking. --edit-- I'm going to reply here to the comment below then I shall bow out o…

1. Bank transfers are reversible. In Europe, you can void a bank transfer up to _several_ days after it has occurred by complaining to your bank. If the bank agrees with you (fraudulent transfer, identity theft, etc), they can ask the receiver's bank to transfer the funds back to you. In France, you have 13 months by law to contest bank transactions after they have taken place. 2. Network fees will be infinitesimal c…

1. this is obviously a good thing. Thieves, fraudsters, and scammers exist. The ability for a trusted third party to roll back history is a feature.

2. How do you know this? Typical POS Credit card processing fees are 2-2.5%. Paypal is 3%. Bitcoin transaction fees can be as high as $50! Unless your typical transaction is 4 digit dollar amounts, credit card processing is cheaper.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#32

Post by atomical »

CPLX wrote: post #27
ericdykstra wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why would I ever agree to let software ALONE enforce a contract? And if there is a human process to override the outcome of the contract, what advantage does it have over a "dumb contract". The cost of enforcing and collecting on a smart contract is much cheaper. Depending on the dollar amount and use case I can see the advantage.

Why? It seems like reviewing complex software code to make sure it’s well understood and no edge cases exist is a costly endeavor.

The same could be said for online banking and deposits. There are efficiency gains to be had by taking additional risk.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#33

Post by unmole »

vntok wrote: post #12
Nursie wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it? Really? As far as I'm aware the oracle problem still exists, the problems of having to get data onto the blockchain from external, trusted sources. In real-world contracts the problems don't arise over the simple execution of contract, they arise when intent is muddied or missed by words, when terms are unfair, overly onerous or legally unenforceable. Given this, there are very, very few situations in which sm…

It is, yes. Most transactions that occur daily across the whole world involve trivial amounts of money. If I want to sell you a 300€ dishwasher, for example, I can either require cash, ask for a check/bank transfer and pray it doesnt bounce, or involve a 3rd party whom i trust in which case I will have to forego a % fee for their escrow service, maybe 30€. With a smart contract, I can now be sure the buyer's funds ex…

> funds exist and are locked before we meet

What does locking funds entail?

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#34

Post by carbocation »

atomical wrote: post #32
CPLX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It seems like reviewing complex software code to make sure it’s well understood and no edge cases exist is a costly endeavor.

The same could be said for online banking and deposits. There are efficiency gains to be had by taking additional risk.

The FDIC insures deposits up to a limit, whether or not one uses online banking.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#35

Post by CPLX »

atomical wrote: post #32
CPLX wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? It seems like reviewing complex software code to make sure it’s well understood and no edge cases exist is a costly endeavor.

The same could be said for online banking and deposits. There are efficiency gains to be had by taking additional risk.

OK so what are those efficiency gains?

Both scenarios require review by well trained specialist experts.

You can also similarly “gain efficiency” by signing complex contracts without consulting attorneys. Many people do for smaller scale agreements.

Where does the part happen where using computer code is cheaper than using a piece of paper?

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#36

Post by nindwen »

koalala wrote: post #30

Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency, aside from the hype train, doesn't appear to have percolated into the collective mainstream or even geek consciousness yet.

> Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency

There is no centralized authority, which means that the protocol in decentralized. It's just not decentralized in exactly the same way as something like Bitcoin. Some might call that a good thing.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#37

Post by fiatjaf »

Stellar is a waste because it's a great idea with a super cool protocol but with a useless shitcoin (XLM) all mixed up in the system.

I'm waiting for someone to rewrite Stellar to not have to use that shitcoin (if you need it for antispam, use Bitcoin Lightning donations, whatever), and also use it for other things, like federated DNS or a federated Wikipedia.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#38

Post by Suncho »

koalala wrote: post #30

Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency, aside from the hype train, doesn't appear to have percolated into the collective mainstream or even geek consciousness yet.

This is why Stellar probably doesn't count as a real "blockchain." It's also why Stellar is potentially a lot more useful than blockchain. You don't have to do proof of work, which is wasteful of resources by design.

Note that the cryptocurrency people use the word "decentralized" differently from the rest of the world. They use it specifically to mean that the mechanism for determining consensus is perfectly distributed among an unknown number of arbitrary nodes.

Stellar consensus is decentralized in the conventional sense. Federation is a form of decentralization.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#39

Post by sneak »

nindwen wrote: post #36
koalala wrote: post #30

Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency, aside from the hype train, doesn't appear to have percolated into the collective mainstream or even geek consciousness yet.

> Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency There is no centralized authority, which means that the protocol in decentralized. It's just not decentralized in exactly the same way as something like Bitcoin. Some might cal…

As long as centralized authorities are subject to government coercion (and all are and always will be), this remains a bad thing, because it leaves strangers in whatever government the authority sits within with veto power over your ability to spend your money. Fuck that.

Re: Stellar Smart Contracts

#40

Post by decentralised »

Suncho wrote: post #38
koalala wrote: post #30

Stellar isn't decentralized. Just like Ripple, it uses Federated Byzantine Agreement, which means that nodes use a list of other nodes they trust. The fact that this scheme has nothing to do with the concept of a decentralized cryptocurrency, aside from the hype train, doesn't appear to have percolated into the collective mainstream or even geek consciousness yet.

This is why Stellar probably doesn't count as a real "blockchain." It's also why Stellar is potentially a lot more useful than blockchain. You don't have to do proof of work, which is wasteful of resources by design. Note that the cryptocurrency people use the word "decentralized" differently from the rest of the world. They use it specifically to mean that the mechanism for determining consensus is perfectly distrib…

There are plenty of consensus protocols that don't waste energy but I think it's important to understand why PoW relies on an unproductive algorithm.

Mining fulfils two roles:

- identity management: To identify who is a trustworthy block producer in an anonymous and trustless network, mining introduces a cost to the block generation process and we use a game theory assumption that it serves as a barrier for attackers. This doesn't mean there aren't validation checks performed by other nodes in the network and the consensus forming rules themselves of course.

- consensus formation: In a distributed network, nodes are bound to disagree on which is the canonical chain out of two or more competing forks. The most common algorithm calculates the accumulated computational effort of each chain of blocks and picks the "heaviest" one, ie the one with the most work done on it. This has the nice side effect of ensuring economic finality for the transactions in those blocks.

Now, regarding decentralisation you state that "the cryptocurrency people" use it wrong, but the definition you gave is incorrect. As a cryptocurrency person, Vitalik Buterin described decentralisation here: https://medium.com/@VitalikButerin/the-meaning-of-decentrali...

Post reply on HN