221–230 of 442 posts
I am starting a campaign for web4. Optionally decentralised internet with no trust. It is simple, you can browse anything anywhere anytime and you can never trust any of it. It can be static forever or dynamic so it always changes. It can use blockchain as a way to verify history or as anonymous messages as you can make them. No obligations, no commitments. Free or not. Just do it!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for asking. My business model has always been larger than just mining ETH. I'm focused on building data centers for providing decentralized compute to all these web3 applications being built today. Mining (aka: being paid to validate anonymous transactions) is just one use case. You see all these articles about how a dApp went down because AWS was down? I'd like to help solve that issue. It isn't just about re…
> I'm focused on building data centers for providing decentralized compute to all these web3 applications being built today. You're building data centers for decentralized compute?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the answer it’s very interesting to see how the infrastructure spin off of mining could lead to more conventionally useful hosting. So in some sense you intend to be multi-region without the eye watering data transfer costs?
You're into gaming, GALA nodes are a great example.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
The “different approaches to solve this” part, if it ever arrives, would be much more revolutionary than the blockchain itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony of course being that you would have to fully trust the programmer who reviews your contract.
You don't have to trust a single developer if you pay multiple independent reviewers though. If you paid a bonus for finding problems you could even incentivize their honesty.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could just publish a log of actions, this isn’t such priceless information that we couldn’t just rely on trust like we already do in the current situation that seems to work well.
I don't understand the point of your comment. You're providing a solution that doesn't fit the initial requirement of a system being trust-less. So, indeed, your solution works, but as you described, it requires trust in the administrators of the website. The idea of web3 is that you wouldn't. "Trust but verify", if you want. This could be used for Facebook or Reddit (given that they solve or attenuate the issue of f…
For stuff at the scale of Facebook and Reddit you'd also probably end up needing caching as the chains would be too slow so you end up needing a layer of trust anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can invest in mutual funds which invest in foreign companies. Creating online accounts for direct mutual funds investments is fully digital using Video KYC.
Yes, I'm aware of that. However, I need to go through a mutual fund and rely on their stock picking strategy and fees (we've had mutual funds default very recently). I want to enter into a position in a specific stock according to my strategy at a price I'm comfortable at. This again leads to the same point: why are we so _comfortable_ with the status quo? I want to think about what could be possible, not what sub-pa…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In OP article the interfacing with real world is solved by some group voting. In the real world, when disagreements arise, we have voting + due process + a hierarchy of courts. It could be argued that due process is an essential part of finding justice. Baking due process into a smart contract is, although extremely interesting, probably impossible.
Great, but take the example in the article. I roll in with my heavies and at gun point force enough of you to vote that the contract was complete even if it wasn't. You can't engineer people away and when you try you've undoubtedly missed something.
Smart contacts exists so that you don't need the heavies nor the guns, you can just exploit a "bug" in the contract and run off with the cash, preferably without anyone knowing who you even are.
Earlier 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.
Stated like this it comes across like a software rewrite, with all its inherent fallacies: underestimating the effort, misjudging the complexity of the original system and comparing known to unknown outcomes. That's not to say it's inherently a bad idea, rewrites are sometimes useful but you need to acknowledge those factors.
(I'd say this does't actually happen because lawyers aren't that daft, but then I remember really long EULAs with really silly clauses...)