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

Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

wired.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 326 posts

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#311

Post by ross_st »

leashless wrote: post #306
ross_st wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Did you read the Smarter Contracts report I linked to for yourself? There's a full chapter on how the process of conveyancing will be significantly streamlined by digital ID, digital signatures, automation and interoperability between data stores. No blockchain required. 2) By KYCAMLCTF/source of funds, I'm assuming you're referring to what happens when someone buys ETH on an exchange? The problem is that only cov…

"I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides" People have said things like this about every new technology -- both the successes and the failures. Will it succeed or fail? We shall see -- I think the former, you think the latter, that's fine: you have no skin in the game and are entitled to your opinion. But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system f…

"But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges."

Yes, but the reason for this is not because it would be impossible to implement with existing technology. There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that. The reason for this is that there's actually a lack of demand for a system that would allow individual properties to be day traded like individual stocks.

Seriously, who the fuck looks at day trading and thinks "wouldn't it be great if we could do this with houses?" And on top of that, proposes a system in which it would be totally pseudonymous? lol, lmao.

I suggest that you seriously reassess your business model if you're counting on people using Mattereum for houses.

I'm not a lawyer but I've read the Smarter Contracts report from LawtechUK - you know, the one Sir Vos was citing - and it lays out quite clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#312

Post by ross_st »

leashless wrote: post #307
ross_st wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) Did you read the Smarter Contracts report I linked to for yourself? There's a full chapter on how the process of conveyancing will be significantly streamlined by digital ID, digital signatures, automation and interoperability between data stores. No blockchain required. 2) By KYCAMLCTF/source of funds, I'm assuming you're referring to what happens when someone buys ETH on an exchange? The problem is that only cov…

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/smart-contracts/ You are a little behind the times on the status of digital signatures, smart contracts etc. Our project The Law Commission was asked by the Lord Chancellor to include work on smart legal contracts as part of our Thirteenth Programme of Law Reform. In November 2019, the UK Jurisdiction Taskforce (“UKJT”) published its legal statement on cryptoassets and smart contract…

Um, okay? None of that refutes anything I said in my summary of the Smarter Contracts report.

All the Law Commission essentially said is that there doesn't need to be any new legislation created for the courts to be able to deal with what they call 'smart legal contracts'.

In their summary report the Law Commission also said: "Solely code smart legal contracts are likely to be rare in practice, given that commercial contracts are typically too nuanced to be reduced solely to code."

Their definition of a 'smart legal contract' includes traditional natural language contracts in which the implementation of some of the aspects is automated by code.

Note also that in this context, 'code' is not confined to 'smart contracts' on blockchains. A web server that automates some contractual activities by connecting with an API, for example, would count as part of a 'smart legal contract' by the definition that the Law Commission is using here.

I'm not sure what point you're actually trying to make by linking me to this Law Commission report. Maybe my brain is just not wide enough / too deep to understand? But if you're trying to convince me that the Law Commission said that we're increasingly going to be using blockchain smart contracts for things, you're seriously misrepresenting the conclusions of their paper.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#313

Post by ross_st »

leashless wrote: post #304
ryan_lane wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 - 10 don't offer any useful information, except to say "blockchain is hot hot hot". You're only further showing that your grift is confidence.

*from one of the most senior judges in the UK* -- not "hot" but "has a ton of utility in the conduct of real commerce." It hits different coming from people that handle the legal frameworks for trillions of dollars of transactions, you know?

Dude, I've already linked you to the full Smarter Contracts report that Sir Vos was referencing and explained to you how much of it isn't even referring to blockchain technology at all. I know you're a VERY busy CEO, but you could at least try and directly address some of that?

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#314

Post by CydeWeys »

Sargos wrote: post #254
CydeWeys wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's true that the tech is in its infancy. I'd say it's pretty mature by now, reaching a mostly steady state.

Not to be rude but you obviously don't follow any of the technology so why even comment on it? Huge advancements in zero knowledge cryptography have been made in the last year. Ethereum activated Proof of Stake in September. New DeFi primitives are released regularly. It's actually hard to keep up with all of the research and releases which is why your comment is so perplexing unless it was made in bad faith.

None of this stuff actually matters though. The main use case for crypto is speculation, store of value, and money-sending, and that's been working from the very beginning.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#315

Post by leashless »

ross_st wrote: post #313
leashless wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

*from one of the most senior judges in the UK* -- not "hot" but "has a ton of utility in the conduct of real commerce." It hits different coming from people that handle the legal frameworks for trillions of dollars of transactions, you know?

Dude, I've already linked you to the full Smarter Contracts report that Sir Vos was referencing and explained to you how much of it isn't even referring to blockchain technology at all. I know you're a VERY busy CEO, but you could at least try and directly address some of that?

I looked at your comments. They read broadly as a total failure of imagination: the kind of thinking that would have looked at email and said "this is not better than a fax machine because I can fax 40 million people, but only email 5000."

If that's how you see the world, me going point by point is not going to change your fundamental "but only 5000 people have email accounts."

Here's 550 pages of the UK Law Commission (govt legal think tank) discussing how to integrate digital assets into UK law.

https://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/digital-assets/

Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space?

Crypto is a massively compelling proposition to working transactional lawyers at all levels of seniority but it's especially compelling to the most senior. They know their business. As do I.

Decades of experience doing real world transactions makes the utility of the blockchain obvious. To people without that experience, maybe the point is harder to see?

But the serious types get it. That's the lived experience in the field.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#316

Post by leashless »

ross_st wrote: post #311
leashless wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I see absolutely no upside to tokenising property interests as NFTs and plenty of downsides" People have said things like this about every new technology -- both the successes and the failures. Will it succeed or fail? We shall see -- I think the former, you think the latter, that's fine: you have no skin in the game and are entitled to your opinion. But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system f…

"But here's the bottom line: there's no electronic trading system for real estate right now, other than things like REIT equity on exchanges." Yes, but the reason for this is not because it would be impossible to implement with existing technology. There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that. The reason for this is that there's actually a lack of demand for a system that wo…

"There's absolutely no reason that you couldn't set up a traditional database to do that."

Everything is equivalent to a Turing machine.

The question is costs.

"clearly how technology is going to streamline the process of conveyancing. This is what's actually needed, not trading property like NFTs"

These statements say the same thing: a perfectly efficient conveyancing process is seamless, so the property can change hands like an NFT. An atomic swap with cash in one direction and the title etc. in the other.

At which point, we just use an NFT.

Have a nice day.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#317

Post by AlexandrB »

leashless wrote: post #246
quickthrowman wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I really don't get how people can believe a single second that this kind of projects can make any sense. I don’t either, given that > writing anything else on a given blockchain only guarantees that this something else is written on this given blockchain, and if you don't have any external authority that can make it true (for example, the justice system to which you can go if the person to whom you have paid for a…

If you actually want to know: https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/Speech-M... That’s from the UK head of civil justice. Read points six through nine. Then https://medium.com/humanizing-the-singularity/the-best-of-bo... Which explains how we get real world facts on to the blockchain in an economically secure way. No, you cannot do this with a database. Bear in mind I’m also http://myhopeforthe.world an…

> blockchains and legal contracts get us aid transparency - if we can track the underlying physical assets say with 2D barcodes.

Have you heard of the oracle problem[1]? How are you planning to solve it for physical goods? A barcode is not the same as the stuff in the box and is trivially copied and transmitted using a smartphone without the goods going anywhere at all. And this is a much bigger issue to reliably delivering anything than which database organizations use to track the goods.

[1] https://chain.link/education-hub/oracle-problem

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#318

Post by AlexandrB »

EGreg wrote: post #253
EamonnMR wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The societal impact and problems from centralized social networks are documented in many places... But hold up now, is a decentralized social network dependent on a decentralized currency/token/Blockchain? Mastodon for example is a robust decentralized social network has absolutely nothing to do with whatever web2+n you're touting. The idea that you need to rebuild currency in order to build a new kind of social ne…

That depends. Currencies are used for paying each other and accounting for usage. Sites like HN and Reddit have a "currency" like Karma. If Wikipedia operated its own currency, it could reward helpful contributions and make vandalism costly (you'd lose 10-50% of your currency if you were found to have vandalized a page, etc.) You can see a quick overview here: https://intercoin.org/communities.pdf Also, micropayments…

> If Wikipedia operated its own currency, it could reward helpful contributions and make vandalism costly (you'd lose 10-50% of your currency if you were found to have vandalized a page, etc.)

Who decides what "vandalized" means or how helpful any given contribution is and why wouldn't such a system be gamed if money is involved? This seems like a great way to turn Wikipedia completely toxic since now there's a potential financial incentive to engaging in bad faith. Even on Reddit - where Karma is not exchangeable for money - this is a problem[1].

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/ox8ptp/what_is_k...

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#319

Post by arcticbull »

leashless wrote: post #304
ryan_lane wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

6 - 10 don't offer any useful information, except to say "blockchain is hot hot hot". You're only further showing that your grift is confidence.

*from one of the most senior judges in the UK* -- not "hot" but "has a ton of utility in the conduct of real commerce." It hits different coming from people that handle the legal frameworks for trillions of dollars of transactions, you know?

Believe it or not, people of any stature and role can have terrible ideas. What you're leveraging is a very clear appeal to authority fallacy. Arguments should stand on their own merits and if you evaluate them on their merits, they fall right down.

Judges aren't experts in technology generally speaking, they're not experts in economics generally speaking and they obviously don't know much about blockchains.

I don't care if he's the King of England, the fact remains. Trustlessness is all-or-nothing. If the chain can become out of sync with the real world, and the real world trumps the chain, then you do not have anything other than a slow and annoying database. This is called the oracle problem, and it remains thoroughly unsolved.

Not to mention real estate on the blockchain is one of the absolute dumbest ideas to date. A bearer token representing ownership of your house, lol. You lose your keys and now someone else owns your house?! I can't wait for Kim Jong-Un to own half the midwest through the Lazarus group.

As of now, the only thing you can extend the guarantees of the blockchain to are things that are wholly and completely represented on-chain. That means basically just 'money.' Literally nothing else is a good fit with the model. And that's before touching on its sheer inefficiency.

But let's come at it the other way. If it has so much potential and we've invested billions and billions of dollars in it, why has every company that tried it given up on it? Why is it still the future, 15 years later? Plenty of ideas that first came to market back then are now the present like the iPhone. I think you and the Judge may be the ones missing something, no parent poster and I.

If you actually manage to take to market a better solution to a problem I have leveraging a blockchain, I will be the first to use it. Stop telling me it's the future and make it happen.

Re: Molly White Tracks Crypto Scams. It’s Going Just Great

#320

Post by arcticbull »

leashless wrote: post #315
ross_st wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dude, I've already linked you to the full Smarter Contracts report that Sir Vos was referencing and explained to you how much of it isn't even referring to blockchain technology at all. I know you're a VERY busy CEO, but you could at least try and directly address some of that?

I looked at your comments. They read broadly as a total failure of imagination: the kind of thinking that would have looked at email and said "this is not better than a fax machine because I can fax 40 million people, but only email 5000." If that's how you see the world, me going point by point is not going to change your fundamental "but only 5000 people have email accounts." Here's 550 pages of the UK Law Commissi…

> Why do you think this kind of labour is going into the digital asset space?

Sunk cost fallacy, libertarian ideology, the fact it's become a cult of prosperity for the tech class and the fact that to argue against it meaningfully you have to have a strong understanding of finance, technology and law. Very few people have enough expertise in all three areas to explain why it's a bad idea.

But let me ask you. Since it's been the 'internet of the early 90s' for 15 years, why isn't it the 'internet of the mid/late 2000s' yet?

Post reply on HN