Indeed, good luck convincing a corporation or some government to sign up. Not impossible, but very hard
Some already are.
Is Web3 anything?
191–200 of 442 posts
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also, it's important to realize the core reason why people trust the government with these things. It's because the government has the ability to actually _enforce_ the contracts if required. I mean, having a deed of owning some property on the blockchain is all cool and dandy. Provided that the polity where the property is located recognizes this. Otherwise you're still trespassing.
The example in the article had a way to enforce contract breaking - the person had to put up collateral until the work was done. There’s problems with that particular mechanism, but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.
So, let's say I pay you 200 ETH and get an NFT signifying ownership of a flat in downtown Kinshasa. I fly to Kinshasa, find the key as you have described, start living in the flat. A year later as I come home I find that the key has been changed and someone else has moved in. They present a purchase agreement, as well as a deed.
What happens next?
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#193The term "Web3" was hijacked by ethereum. web 3.11 (crypto optional edition) as I see it is about decentralised services over p2p networks (which may include crypto/blockchain).
> web 3.11 I hear there's something called "Web NT" (new technology) that'll be big in 5 years.
glad someone got the reference :D
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
Democracy solves the Byzantine agreement problem just fine already. I like the aspects of decentralisation that help you preserve democracy, but beyond that it’s not necessary to replace every single aspect of a functioning democracy with a cryptographic commitment scheme. It would be worse if you did. That vision of society sounds terrible. (I can’t comment on this without noting that of all the interpretations of t…
> Democracy solves the Byzantine agreement problem just fine already. That’s nice when you and your counterparty are part of the same democracy, or potentially allied ones. But how do you enforce contracts when your government and their government are at war? (The governments say “you shouldn’t; they’re the enemy.” Well, screw the governments, I want to make positive-sum trades in the hopes of increasing global GDP a…
>The governments say “you shouldn’t; they’re the enemy.” Well, screw the governments, I want to make positive-sum trades in the hopes of increasing global GDP and ratcheting us up out of the need for wars over unevenly-distributed scarce resources in the first place.
That's a real nice justification for war profiteering ya got there. I don't think it'll convince too many people though...
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#195People keep saying 'trustless', without realizing the upsetting and very real truth that no mechanism is trustless. Even if you can, if well informed, verify the cryptographic integrity of any communication or data, you are also relying on and trusting the device, UI, and OS that you're using (+myriad stacks, libs, protocols). You are relying on every single medium between you and whatever it is that's verifiable. Le…
yeah, trustless is a marketing term.
I don't see people here getting riled up about the fact that many founders call their product "intuitive" either.
Neither can there be pre-born intuition for a tech product as anything human-made must be entirely non-natural.
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example in the article had a way to enforce contract breaking - the person had to put up collateral until the work was done. There’s problems with that particular mechanism, but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.
All these schemes always still might need some higher authority in the end e.g. who decides when the work is done? Putting up collateral only ensures that someone has the money, it does not ensure that one actually gets the money. Because defining when "the work" is done, can be really complicated in real life projects. Contracts in real life are complicated. Real life is messy etc.
> who decides when the work is done?
This is part of the smart contract, which has to explicitly define the conditions on which the collateral is confiscated.
Getting real life data reliably into the blockchain is hard, but there are different approaches to solve this.
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The example in the article had a way to enforce contract breaking - the person had to put up collateral until the work was done. There’s problems with that particular mechanism, but in general if contracts can automatically decrease someone’s money, reputation, access etc, they can do enforcement.
All these schemes always still might need some higher authority in the end e.g. who decides when the work is done? Putting up collateral only ensures that someone has the money, it does not ensure that one actually gets the money. Because defining when "the work" is done, can be really complicated in real life projects. Contracts in real life are complicated. Real life is messy etc.
I’d imagine they would, kind of like the levels of arbitrators and courts today.
The article said the neighbours first vote that work is done. Most of the time that could work. But it also mentions the neighbours could collude to steal the collateral. In that case courts could get involved and force money be returned etc.
I’m very far from a legal expert, but smart contracts seem like a potentially useful tool, within the current system. Not as a complete replacement.
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#198> Once submitted, that “contract” will be carried out exactly as specified. It is observable to everyone, debuggable, and non-falsifiable. But a centralized database can also achieve this, right? The premise of the general public trusting a blockchain more than an established, centralized 3rd party (e.g. government) seems so feeble.
How can a database achieve observability to anyone?
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
The trouble is that the systems are broken. The level of gatekeeping and lack of informed consent have made the legal system a mess. The lawyers are the ones writing the laws... for the benefit of the lawyers and the people with the highest bids. In a fair system, sure, but the American financial legal system is bonkers. There's a reason people are looking for alternatives.
The laws are mostly fine. The process of getting justice when someone has broken them is the bigger problem. Unfortunately solving the problem of access to cheap and efficient justice is just not that glamorous. There’s not enough money in it, so let’s start again from scratch right? Not to mention techno-libertarian anarcho-capitalism is the ideological driving force behind many decentralisation efforts (hello Bitco…
[deleted]
Re: Is Web3 anything?
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I think the stated use case is bizarre and useless, I will note that economic sanctions are almost universally bad, used to hurt the populace of countries like Iran, North Korea, Cuba and others without doing anything to hurt the ruling elites. That said, the problem with such sanctions and trade embargoes is usually the flow of goods, which Bitcoin does less than nothing to solve of course.
I agree, but as we speak Russia has amassed 150k+ troops on the Ukrainian border and Putin is waiting to see whether the West can apply enough sanctions to make the whole effort a net loss before he gives the green light on an invasion.
I'm not sure economic sanctions are the solution here. More likely, a positive deal and various security promises for Russia (e.g. no more NATO exercises for a mock invasion of Russia, or simply more commerce) will probably do a lot more to ease tensions. As long as NATO and Russia continue to behave as enemies, Russia will continue to see Ukraine as a necessary buffer at its borders, and seek to make it a vassal state, to the detriment of everyone...
Edit to add: avoid phrases like "the West", it's very "Us and Them", it's much better to be explicit: is this about NATO? The US and its closest allies? The EU?