161–166 of 166 posts
...so they claim to be a consensus based registry, yet they block existing trademarked domains and are the only entity receiving money? How does that even hold up with their core argument that DNS is too centralized?
Link of old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22174009
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>This seems ripe for abuse. You proposed the hypothetical starting with the Court. If you want blockchain to preempt any court involvement your hypothetical needs to start at that point. I think it is possible through the prisoners dilemma. Have husband and wife have a joint wallet from the beginning governed by smart contract with agreed upon prenuptial terms. Marital assets could go in and then upon divorce they be…
What about people being sued for damages, or creditors laying claim to the assets? There are endless cases where a court can unilaterally decide your assets are not your assets any longer. Also, your hypothetical solution to the blockchain not reflecting court orders in the narrow case of divorce law is to ensure every married buyer of a crypto equity has a prenuptual agreement in place in their crypto wallet. Can yo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> my mom has managed to keep all the videos and photos of key events in my childhood safe and intact for 40 years without having to put them on a public distributed ledger No offense, but in all likelihood no one is attempting to counterfeit or pirate your Mom's videos and photos of your childhood, and ownership/p2p ownership transfers are not material. There are almost infinite real world examples were ownership rec…
Brasil solves the problem of land titles with a central land ownership database feed by private local notaries under jurisdiction of the department of justice. In some remote locations there are still fraud, but because the local notaries are corrupt. Not a problem that a distributed database would solve. A blockchain only gives a certain guarantee that the records haven’t been altered, but not that the information w…
We suffer from the same problem where nothing stops errors in the recorded documents. But most of the intentional fraud is as simple as: You own Property A and I file a Quit Claim Deed transferring Property A from You (the lawful owner) to myself. As far as I know all the local levels do require these documents to be notarized, but we too suffer from bribery or just simply corruption where a notary may either be part of the fraud or just helping a friend/family member commit the fraud.
If the transfer required signature by private key it would help curb this type of fraud, but there would need to be additional safeguards and there are many other types of fraud and unintentional errors that exist. A system like Git might actually help with some of the errors as it would highlight changes from a current recording to a past records and even incorporate the official land records of the local governments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What about people being sued for damages, or creditors laying claim to the assets? There are endless cases where a court can unilaterally decide your assets are not your assets any longer. Also, your hypothetical solution to the blockchain not reflecting court orders in the narrow case of divorce law is to ensure every married buyer of a crypto equity has a prenuptual agreement in place in their crypto wallet. Can yo…
I can think of a problem when someone poses a hypothetical with a given set of facts, you propose one of many potential solutions, then they change the facts of the hypothetical. For example, someone asking about a dissolution of marriage and then complaining the solution was limited to "narrow case of divorce law" and adding in addition 3rd party creditors. Its well beyond the scope of any limited good-faith discuss…
But if the blockchain doesn’t manipulate balances according to the court, and the court decides half of your crypto equities in $WALLET now belong to someone else, then at that moment in time the blockchain’s account balances become inaccurate. These types of events happen not infrequently, which creates a problem.
Perhaps blockchain property titles will make my point easier for you to understand. Say you own the house at 187 Blue Kodiak Drive, and the title is an “NFT” recorded on the blockchain. The NFT must be respected (!). Then a court steps in and assigns ownership of 187 Blue Kodiak to a bank, because it turns out you haven’t been paying your mortgage. But wait, the blockchain still says you own the home at 187 Blue Kodiak Drive (!). However, you don’t own it anymore — not legally, not physically.
Now pretend the blockchain on which the 187 Blue Kodiak Drive house title is recorded dutifully obeys the commands of the court which in our previous example allowed the bank to repossess it. In our previous example, that’d be just fine — after all, you haven’t been paying your mortgage. But now the issue changes: The Pink Panther slides his way into the court one day, and one way or another convinces an decision-making authority there that you’ve sold him the home at 187. The Pink Panther is now in possession of the title, and you’re out of luck.
Ultimately, this criticism of smart property has been around for many years now. It wasn’t my intent to “surprise” you with it. However, people invested in tangentially related crypto systems tend to really struggle with this. That’s because public blockchains were never designed to track non-bearer assets which exist in in the real world. Unlike companies built by humans or real estate, the (public) blockchain exists only in cyberspace, and therefore any ownership data of company shares or real estate recorded on the blockchain can only ever be an approximation of the truth. Permissioned blockchains — or simple databases for that matter — tend to be a better fit for situations such as this. The issue with them is they don’t take investors.
...so they claim to be a consensus based registry, yet they block existing trademarked domains and are the only entity receiving money? How does that even hold up with their core argument that DNS is too centralized?
Hi, i read your comment from January 2020, where you said you had a t440p working with 32gb, ram, i wanted to ask you how did you were able to do that since t440p is for default blocked at 16gb. thanks Link of old comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22174009
Otherwise I'd recommend you to try the checkra1n or ivyra1n discords if you want to try to patch the mrc.bin yourself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can think of a problem when someone poses a hypothetical with a given set of facts, you propose one of many potential solutions, then they change the facts of the hypothetical. For example, someone asking about a dissolution of marriage and then complaining the solution was limited to "narrow case of divorce law" and adding in addition 3rd party creditors. Its well beyond the scope of any limited good-faith discuss…
If the blockchain manipulates balances according to the whims of a court, then manipulating the court becomes a potential source of revenue for anyone able to game the system. But if the blockchain doesn’t manipulate balances according to the court, and the court decides half of your crypto equities in $WALLET now belong to someone else, then at that moment in time the blockchain’s account balances become inaccurate.…
Your issue is with the Court, all the way up to bribery, which would exist with or without blockchain. Your concern is not without merit I suppose, but in my opinion is an extreme edge case against blockchain to suggest the legacy system is a better solution, when the very edge case you describe exists in the legacy system. Thus, it over looks the benefits the blockchain solution would have.
Again "blockchain" is a bit of a misnomer in the sense it suggests blockchain is a single tech solution, when there are many existing implementations from multi-party signatures to smart contracts - yes controlled by a 3rd party - when say an NFT ownership record could be burned and/or reminted.
I am also not entirely sure about this point:
>The issue with them is they don’t take investors.
Almost every legacy system I am aware of that is utilized by the Courts are money making machines that have investors and/or are publicly traded companies. I am sure you could find one or a database that doesn't have investors, but the money is certainly there for software solutions used by the Courts.