Live data from Hacker News

Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

web.archive.org

11–20 of 42 posts

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#11

Aspects of this sound similar to Stellar and Ripple. Could folks with more knowledge elaborate on the differences?

I didn't know this project but if you visit their website today you can see that Stellar is listed there as a reference.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#12
post #2

>Conversely, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum have decentralized the process of issuing and managing a currency. But while the operations of such currencies, based on blockchains, have been fully decentralized, the trust graph of these cryptocurrencies have remained entirely centralized. Everyone need to trust Bitcoin to transact in Bitcoin, and everyone needs to trust Ethereum to transact in Ethereum or…

Cryptocurrencies can still be subject to hard forks which allow seizure transactions. Likely in the future governments will demand such changes, if they don't outlaw cryptocurrencies entirely. Furthermore, bitcoin's value is highly volatile. So your initial investment of $100 might be worth $5000 or $0.10 in 3 years. You might not have to trust the network itself, but you have to trust the value of the asset to remain stable enough. Which it isn't due to multiple factors.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#13

Aspects of this sound similar to Stellar and Ripple. Could folks with more knowledge elaborate on the differences?

It seems so. Its the notion of "Trust Lines"[0]

All this thing does is limit potential losses from fraud. Not eliminating.

The main value proposition of a blockchain is to solve the "principal-agent" problem [1] and gis simply reduces the risk but doesn't remove it entirely.

Plus some of the requirements on a node having to be online (in a decentalized, byzantine environment) all the time are unrealistic.

This seems more like ripple.

Stellar uses a more sophisticated notion of "quorum slices" and is resistant to byzantine faults [2]

[0]: https://trustlines.foundation/faq.html

[1]:https://as1ndu.xyz/2021/04/clarifying-the-blockchain-proposi...

[2]: https://youtu.be/vmwnhZmEZjc

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#14
post #8
post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the idea of money as credit is very interesting (look at my HN comment history for my ramblings on the topic!). > I think the system described is interesting, but for regular human commerce purposes, I think the downsides of it (managing IOUs from many different parties, needing to have a trust-path between users that could steal from you, needing to keep a node online always or trust your money to someone el…

> I don't like crypto because there's essentially zero accountability for issuers and that kind of environment is optimal for scammers. Please expand on this as I'm almost certain this doesn't apply to BTC, ETH, and other reputable chains.

Sure, it's more an observation of the mechanics underpinning cryptocurrencies. My statement was actually incorrect in that there are not actually "issuers" per se in crypto and that can be a problem.

Cryptocurrencies like BTC, ETH and whatever else are not "money" in the sense that we generally understand. This money is either a credit on a commercial bank or a credit on a central bank. These entities are responsible for managing the liquidity and solvency of their balance sheet such that the credit you hold retains value (Yes, I know there is inflation but that's an orthogonal concern, I would argue). There is a governance and legal framework underpinning how money works in this "mundane World". Everything in the mundane world is a legal agreement. Financial agreements are always someone's liability and that's a good thing because someone is always accountable if something goes wrong.

Cryptocurrency behaves more like some kind of synthetic commodity. By that I mean that it inherently has no value and has no use for anything other than being a "token". When cryptocurrency is created, it has no issuer. There's no accepted legal framework or explicit governance framework for holding people accountable if something goes wrong (other than code is law) and things go wrong all the time. There are rug pulls, exchange rate crashes and project failures are ten a penny etc... and this is all happening while the crypto world is in a mega bull market! What happens when the next bear market comes around? All the projects that _seem_ viable now will suddenly become unviable. All the debt positions collateralised with sketchy crypto will unwind en masse. I suspect the tokens for many projects out there will trade close to zero. People who invested in various projects from algo stablecoins to lending protocols will suddenly find that they hold worthless tokens with zero recourse. By this point the insiders would have exited into BTC/ETH/fiat ready to start the next round of "projects".

Maybe this is OK. I mean, it is what it is and clearly some people are fine with that. I think we can do better though. That's why I'm interested in credit based monetary systems because reputation is a key part, so participants are accountable for their actions. This is fundamental for any significant real world adoption. Furthermore, credit based instruments do have intrinsic value which is a function of issuer credit risk. Such instruments are more stable than "synthetic commodities" and have more utility for real world uses.

Having said all that. I work in the crypto world and quite enjoy it. I just don't think it's as good as some would have you believe.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#15
post #12
post #2

>Conversely, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum have decentralized the process of issuing and managing a currency. But while the operations of such currencies, based on blockchains, have been fully decentralized, the trust graph of these cryptocurrencies have remained entirely centralized. Everyone need to trust Bitcoin to transact in Bitcoin, and everyone needs to trust Ethereum to transact in Ethereum or…

Cryptocurrencies can still be subject to hard forks which allow seizure transactions. Likely in the future governments will demand such changes, if they don't outlaw cryptocurrencies entirely. Furthermore, bitcoin's value is highly volatile. So your initial investment of $100 might be worth $5000 or $0.10 in 3 years. You might not have to trust the network itself, but you have to trust the value of the asset to remai…

Not sure how you think governments could demand changes from major cryptos. They're not currently beholden to governments, and it seems unlikely they'll become more beholden as they grow larger.

Volatility is ameliorated by stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. Furthermore, the long-term goal is to not need an "interface to the real world", because you will be paid in crypto and you will pay for things in crypto. Even then, who exactly do you mean when you say "the people providing the interface"? I don't need a middle-man to agree to exchange crypto for fiat with someone. You can use one, sure, but it's not required.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#17
I am working on something like this. Having a money in the system is a pretty hard problem (quantitative type theory-ish / lifted inference).

You can get around that with culture and using existing systems as settlement layer (for the time being).

Even then there is only one cryptocurrency that has a proper mechanism design for oracles (amoveo) - which you need if you want a trustless layer 2.

Datalisp (@ for telegram .is for binge-written PDF) is this project (that I just started) it's basically a vector clock for wrapping interfaces in authenticated data structures and Bayesian inference with logic programming for estimating / inferring trust.

By giving a useful framework for refining reproducibility we can build trust. Trust we need if we want a system to serve as a foundation for digital societies.

Francis Bacon said knowledge was possible and science could establish trust. Now we need that, automated.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#18
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrencies can still be subject to hard forks which allow seizure transactions. Likely in the future governments will demand such changes, if they don't outlaw cryptocurrencies entirely. Furthermore, bitcoin's value is highly volatile. So your initial investment of $100 might be worth $5000 or $0.10 in 3 years. You might not have to trust the network itself, but you have to trust the value of the asset to remai…

Not sure how you think governments could demand changes from major cryptos. They're not currently beholden to governments, and it seems unlikely they'll become more beholden as they grow larger . Volatility is ameliorated by stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. Furthermore, the long-term goal is to not need an "interface to the real world", because you will be paid in crypto and you will pay for things in crypto. E…

Cryptocurrencies are in the process of becoming more beholden, or at least more outlawed: https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/what-do-turkey-s-cryptocur...

Governments have the guns. I doubt that cryptocurrencies will win in the long run, unless they provide hooks for governments to project their power, which includes asset seizure transactions.

As for the people providing the interface, I've since edited my comment. My point used to be that exchanges like coinbase engage in massive market manipulation to aid their own goals, but it's not the only cause for the volatility of cryptocurrencies like bitcoin, so I edited it out.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#19
post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrencies can still be subject to hard forks which allow seizure transactions. Likely in the future governments will demand such changes, if they don't outlaw cryptocurrencies entirely. Furthermore, bitcoin's value is highly volatile. So your initial investment of $100 might be worth $5000 or $0.10 in 3 years. You might not have to trust the network itself, but you have to trust the value of the asset to remai…

Not sure how you think governments could demand changes from major cryptos. They're not currently beholden to governments, and it seems unlikely they'll become more beholden as they grow larger . Volatility is ameliorated by stablecoins pegged to fiat currencies. Furthermore, the long-term goal is to not need an "interface to the real world", because you will be paid in crypto and you will pay for things in crypto. E…

A government could easily mandate block lists. All legitimate businesses dealing with cryptocurrencies would be required to not consider "blocked" coins as valid. I can even realistically envision broad support for such a change, when some "character" who is sufficiently evil becomes known (via non-stop media targeting I suspect) to be empowered by a certain cryptocurrency.

I suppose there are some blockchains where it is not possible to follow balances between transactions. I'm not sure what would happen with those.

Re: Decentralized trust graph for online value exchange without a blockchain (2017)

#20
post #3
post #2

>Conversely, cryptocurrencies such as Bitcoin or Ethereum have decentralized the process of issuing and managing a currency. But while the operations of such currencies, based on blockchains, have been fully decentralized, the trust graph of these cryptocurrencies have remained entirely centralized. Everyone need to trust Bitcoin to transact in Bitcoin, and everyone needs to trust Ethereum to transact in Ethereum or…

I think the idea of money as credit is very interesting (look at my HN comment history for my ramblings on the topic!). > I think the system described is interesting, but for regular human commerce purposes, I think the downsides of it (managing IOUs from many different parties, needing to have a trust-path between users that could steal from you, needing to keep a node online always or trust your money to someone el…

>1. Market makers who buy IOUs at a discount and swap them for _their_ IOU which can be more trusted.

Doesn't this go against decentralization? Why would anyone want rojeee IOUs when they can instead trade US federal government IOUs (aka. US dollars)? What's the advantage in managing IOUs from a bunch of different entities and having to pay market makers every time you transact?

>These parties could be fully automated (think like Ethereum DAO) and transparent

This is a bit handwavy. How does the system know how much rojeee IOUs are worth? Your ability to repay is based off a multitude of factors that can't be captured on the blockchain.

>2. Insurance or a credit derivatives market so people can hedge against counterparts defaults.

>4. Securitisation markets. Package up IOUs into tranches. Traders can speculate on various levels of credit quality.

All of this is going to increase complexity exponentially, and for what benefit?

Post reply on HN