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

It’s not still the early days of blockchain

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

661–670 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#661

Post by czbond »

ziml77 wrote: post #647
Grustaf wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless the insurance policy is somehow decentralised, it doesn't serve any purpose to decentralise the knowledge that you are insured.

It's worse than not serving any purpose. It's information about your life that is forever stored out in the open. Except for some limited cases, it's no ones business to know whether I am insured and for how much.

Agree, and once quantum comps are more readily available - re-analyzing the entire chain and profiling individuals will be so easy, an AWS quant rental will be able to decrypt and do it.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#662

Post by hartator »

disruptalot wrote: post #608
hartator wrote: post #569

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> without permission or interference from a third party Aren’t other nodes the third parties? If you are talking automated loan, you should look into credit lines backed by assets. Pledge assets lines. Once open, it’s fully automated and you don’t need to interact with a third party either.

They can't interfere with what you want to do. They could try to prevent you from interacting for a while but it would be futile. There are heavy disencentives, and decentralised enough. Which is why this has basically never happened. Talking strictly bitcoin and Ethereum here. In honesty I have no experience with a pledge asset line but I can guarantee you that if the institutions involved in conducting it wanted to…

PAL is 1-2 clicks once they are open. And you borrow a lot at a very low interests. You might lose your stocks though if the market goes down too much.

Please note that the lack of paperwork in Ethereum just means you borrow or loan money in a way that might be not legal. I am all for removing redtape here.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#663

Post by zepto »

aflag wrote: post #593
zepto wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then measures can be taken to enforce that without necessarily evoking a central government. What measures?

I don't have the answers, but I'm easily drawn to such thought experiments: all the neighbors would agree with you that you're the owner and not the person who sold you the deed but wants to remain inside of it or some intruder or whatever. So, when you knock on their door and try to remove them, you'll get support from the local people who will try to respect what's in the "housechain". It is in their interest that…

> That's beside the point, though.

No - it is the point.

> I'm just noting that the possibility of have distributed deeds does make it possible to have some of the benefits of a centralized government:

No, it doesn’t make anything possible unless there is an enforcement mechanism.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#664

Post by agumonkey »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #33

I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. Why? Back in 2017 during the first hype cycle, blockchain companies raised hundreds of millions with ICOs. I became very interested in the technology too, and some friends still work in this space. 4 years later in the web3 era, there is not a single product aside from trading/finance that got traction. Use cases like stori…

It's muddy waters. I just heard some guy from a public office saying they used DOT for some specific need (related to managing bonds somehow). And it was before last year boom. It's all very fuzzy

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#665

Post by dmitriid »

tim333 wrote: post #587
lkrubner wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been documenting this with specific companies. A recent one that I worked with was Omnichains: https://www.omnichains.com "Omnichain CEO Pratik Soni speaks to Inbound Logistics about the growing number of blockchain use cases in the supply chain, including in reverse logistics, product authentication and sustainability." Apparently this company started with the idea that they would use the blockchain to make sup…

There's selling NFTs of ape cartoons, or selling crypto coins or other imaginary assets. Rails and MySQL are too transitory for that - you'd buy a record in the database only to find the company hosting the database had gone broke or been bought by Yahoo who closed them. You buy a bitcoin and you can be fairly confident in a decade or two you'll still have it.

> You buy a bitcoin and you can be fairly confident in a decade or two you'll still have it.

And it will be worthless. Most assets that NFTs point to are already gone. Because that useless hash you have in your NFT? It points to a centralised storager somewhere.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#666

Post by kikimora »

UncleMeat wrote: post #625
chucke wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the promise of having an insurance contract publicly verified by a decentralised system is to reduce the inherent costs of the current regulated system. In my country,and I assume in most it's the same, in order for you to sign a buy contract for a house, there has to be a notary involved. The whole process costs a significant percentage of your already heavy purchase. A blockchain won't solve all the probl…

The notary is a teeny-tiny portion of the expense in the homebuying process. And you'd still need a lawyer involved if your transaction involves mortgages (and likely you'd still want one anyway to construct the transaction). Putting deeds on the blockchain changes the homebuying process almost not at all. As for state IDs... why not just a centralized database with a public API? What does decentralization achieve fo…

The promise of blockchain is to eventually remove lawyers and all middleman. It can be done already with existing tech. I can easily imagine a smart contract managing property rights, another one managing mortgages, etc. And of course all that has a back door so a court order can rollback a transaction.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#667

Post by czbond »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #33

I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. Why? Back in 2017 during the first hype cycle, blockchain companies raised hundreds of millions with ICOs. I became very interested in the technology too, and some friends still work in this space. 4 years later in the web3 era, there is not a single product aside from trading/finance that got traction. Use cases like stori…

Decentralized, anonymized identity is one application. It sounds amazing in theory - and can work for the general use cases of sharing information with corporations. But, I believe it won't really be anonymized, as "data exhaust", "identity touch points revealing identity in aggregate" can help identify.

An example I use, is people expect bitcoin is anonymous. Yes, it is anonymous to the general layperson and corporation - but not to say NSA/FBI for "people of interest". And once bitcoin to USDollar transactions or financial institutions are more common - banks will sell your wallet information to credit bureaus, and eventually corporations will be able to de-anonymize chains for profiling just as today.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#668

Post by neiman »

eterm wrote: post #514
EUFintecheer wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uh, oh, will … no. Its Not true in that Description, also dont forget: SEPA!=Euro!=EU!=EER Source: Im running a bank. In the EU.

Okay sure, but the point is that the solution is that is "Expand SEPA / faster payments system" not, "We need new technology". It's a political problem not a technological one.

It's a technological problem. The SEPA system relies on MANY providers giving a many services. Replaces it with a technology that doesn't rely on any providers but instead allowing direct transfer of money from one person to another, and by almost by definition it'll be faster.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#669

Post by dmitriid »

aflag wrote: post #637
betterunix2 wrote: post #599

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people in charge of enforcement would become a de facto government. What distinguishes a government from any other organization is the monopoly on violence (more precisely, the monopoly on deciding when and how violent measures can be employed), and enforcing property rights sometimes requires violence (e.g. if someone refuses to leave your home, eventually the police will have to physically remove them against t…

In a decentralized society, there may be multiple organizations deciding on when and how violent measures can be employed — and they could be as small as one person. If each organization thinks a different person is the owner of a property, that would be very unstable. However, if they all agree that a certain blockchain implementation of deeds is what decides ownership, then they can co-exist more peacefully. Not sa…

> Going back to the decentralized society, everyone would agree

Ah yes. Because it's a well-known fact that it's so easy for everyone to agree on something.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#670

Post by RivieraKid »

jakupovic wrote: post #476
Ekaros wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I could already easily get uncollaterised loan, just a text message away... And if I have a collateral in form of fungible crypto why do I need to loan against it? Specially when I could just sell it and use the money...

Because you're taking a loan against it, duh. Therefore you want to keep it. Just like taking a line of credit against your house. You don't sell your house immediately.

But you can't use it to buy stuff. You can use a house.
Post reply on HN