141–150 of 415 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Credit card companies have a good system for handling $5 disputes. They write them off.
Not quite, they make the merchant write it off. And if someone brings too many disputes, they investigate. (The small fraud problem is one reason I think micro payments can't happen: you can't investigate sub-cent fraud, but if someone can automate it they can steal a lot.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But what if two banks are transferring money between themselves? Which bank owns the database? Why should the other bank trust that database?
Trusted third party owned by the banks, or providing audited services to the banks. Banks trust the third party because contracts are enforced by law as well as federal and industry regulations. Ain't no judge gonna throw up is hands and go "well, the smart contract says so, my hands are tied!". Blockchain doesn't solve anything where there is a functioning legal framework. You can't use technology to solve a problem…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? > Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. What problems? I mean your arguing like something like public transportation is an impossibility without blockchain backing because: "Who owns the stations, who enforces the schedules and who owns the actual busses?" Those are not problems. They are all just quest…
But what if two banks are transferring money between themselves? Which bank owns the database? Why should the other bank trust that database?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Society_for_Worldwide_Interban...
See also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_House_Interbank_Payme...
I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
> It's literally how the world works. So the world works perfectly in your opinion? The good thing about blockchain is it lowers the cost bar for crazy expensive business legalize. It of course needs more work but a proper smart contract setup placed in front of a judge leaves little need for a dozen lawyers and business consultants to see the intent of the contract. The main issue is that the current very expensive…
Just an FYI, from the context of the next sentence I believe you mean "legalese". "Legalese" is convoluted legal jargon; "legalize" is a verb meaning to make something legal.
I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
My sense is the set of scenarios where "you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties" is broader than just illegal agreements. Contract often fail when the damages for breach are too small, diffuse, and heterogeneous, making class action unsuitable. And many contract provisions are often not honored in bankruptcy. Litigation is an unwieldy tool and preferably avoided where possible…
Depending on your location, the MAXIMUM damages for small-claims court is $5000 to $10,000. The whole system is designed so that smaller issues can be resolved quickly.
> And many contract provisions are often not honored in bankruptcy
That's literally the point of bankruptcy. The courts say "X has paid enough to its debtors and no longer needs to pay any more". You can't squeeze blood out of a stone. If the defendant doesn't have any money left, it doesn't make sense to sue them.
> Litigation is an unwieldy tool and preferably avoided where possible.
How does Blockchain stop litigation?
* If your Ethereum smart-contract says you owe your Car (or House) to somebody, but you don't give it to them... they'll be forced to go through the court system anyway to force you to give them the promised goods.
* If you fraudulently reported to the smart-contract the temperature of goods or... otherwise tricked the sensors on "smart contract temperature sensors", you have to be taken to court.
* If you put 20 BTC into an exchange (in promise for 550 ETH or whatever), but the exchange goes bankrupt... you lose both your BTC and your ETH. You have to go through the courts to try to get your money back.
I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
There were people saying the same thing as you before the wheel was invented, and in 1550, and 1800, and 1900, and 1910 (guys, horses shit on the streets and you occasionally contract dysentary. But overwhelmingly you can get from point A to B. Guys, horse-drawn carriages work. It's how the world works!) and 1950 and 1990 and...
"This is how the world works" is not a valid rejection against using a _new_ technology.
I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
And just like many email clients and many email servers work together, in the future, companies accounting systems will work together, and create a single-triple transaction, instead of a double entry at EACH company. You can swap out accounting systems at any time, and still participate in the standardized distributed database. Blockchains can be used to reduce redundancy in accounting. Not all blockchains need proof-of-work and fault tolerance turned up to 100%. Sometimes you can have parties that sort-of trust each other, but none of them want one of the others owning the whole system.
I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
> In other words, anything illegal. Not exactly. It's anything for which the legal system is not effective. For example, you can have a perfectly legal contract, but the other party is in a corrupt foreign jurisdiction that would never find in your favor in the event of a breach. Then you can't contract with them because they have no incentive not to breach, without an alternative method of ensuring compliance that d…
Will blockchain fix it? doubt it. but a lot of people are trying.