41–50 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cited something extremely relevant (a platform that uses blockchain to digitize real estate), and correctly disclaim that I am involved, and you downvoted me. I would have appreciated a comment and/or a reason for the downvote.
If you're actually in good faith confused on the downvotes I think it's because people are so sick of hearing and reading people shilling their pet "blockchain for X" company/idea/coin
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If someone steals the crypto keys to your house and transfers it to themselves are the cops going to come and kick you out of the house?
The gov could have a legal process to re-issue you a new token and invalidate the old one.
This (along with other posts from Vitalik) keep ignoring any solutions that don’t require blockchain. As an example, he writes: > Certificates, for example cryptographic proofs that some particular individual is a resident of the city, could be done on-chain for added verifiability and security (eg. if such certificates are issued on-chain, it would become obvious if a large number of false certificates are issued).…
Lots of things "don't need" to be written in python, but they're written in python anyway. I expect a lot of blockchain institutional use cases will take a similar route: sure, theoretically they could use some standardized federated solution, but in practice blockchain tx fees will become low enough through layer-2s to be negligible and that's where all the infrastructure to help users verify what's going on, and us…
As an example, you’re open to Sybil attacks, and ongoing costs of mining. You need to understand the economics behind the chain you chose to make sure it doesn’t die, and hand off the key management to land owners.
When we have a simpler solution that doesn’t burn the planet, and is easily understood by everyone - as engineers it is our responsibility to have a really compelling reason to ignore it. I don’t see it here.
This (along with other posts from Vitalik) keep ignoring any solutions that don’t require blockchain. As an example, he writes: > Certificates, for example cryptographic proofs that some particular individual is a resident of the city, could be done on-chain for added verifiability and security (eg. if such certificates are issued on-chain, it would become obvious if a large number of false certificates are issued).…
Why not though? I'm buying a house and this came to mind. -Centralized city/county tokenizes all parcels of land, grants them to current owners -I can prove I own it via a signed transaction, and anyone can trustlessly verify I own it -When I sell it, I can trustlessly transfer it to the recipient for an agreed upon price via smart contract Boom, no more closing fees. Eliminate the scammy title insurance industry. No…
The security model doesn’t change - this party could sign away your land ownership already. You don’t need to trust an arbitrary blockchain, or mining economics or get all land owners to buy multisig hardware wallets.
I find it amazing that 5 years after a catastrophic failure that could have killed Ethereum[1], Vitalik is pitching DAOs once again… But well, subprimes and CDS still exist, and the EU re-allowed using Meat and bone meal to feed castle 20 years after the mad cow disease, so I guess it's just that humans are just very bad at learning from our mistakes. [1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec..…
Yes because the entire Ethereum community moved on and continued innovating and improving and there are now dozens of open source governance structures for DAOs in place that have been battle tested and are running multi-billion dollar treasuries now: https://gnosis-safe.io/ https://www.metacartel.org/ https://compound.finance/governance https://daohaus.club/ https://snapshot.org/#/gitcoindao.eth We are very good at…
I find it amazing that 5 years after a catastrophic failure that could have killed Ethereum[1], Vitalik is pitching DAOs once again… But well, subprimes and CDS still exist, and the EU re-allowed using Meat and bone meal to feed castle 20 years after the mad cow disease, so I guess it's just that humans are just very bad at learning from our mistakes. [1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec..…
Yes because the entire Ethereum community moved on and continued innovating and improving and there are now dozens of open source governance structures for DAOs in place that have been battle tested and are running multi-billion dollar treasuries now: https://gnosis-safe.io/ https://www.metacartel.org/ https://compound.finance/governance https://daohaus.club/ https://snapshot.org/#/gitcoindao.eth We are very good at…
In 2021, losing tens of millions in crypto assets because of a bug or a hack is considered normal an bothers no-one: in the last 3 months only, a billion dollar was lost or stolen (Poly network, Compound, Cream finance and smaller others), but “this is fine”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why not though? I'm buying a house and this came to mind. -Centralized city/county tokenizes all parcels of land, grants them to current owners -I can prove I own it via a signed transaction, and anyone can trustlessly verify I own it -When I sell it, I can trustlessly transfer it to the recipient for an agreed upon price via smart contract Boom, no more closing fees. Eliminate the scammy title insurance industry. No…
If someone steals the crypto keys to your house and transfers it to themselves are the cops going to come and kick you out of the house?
It seems that issue being fixed is lack of proper land registry.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But you don't need cryptocurrencies for a local currency. In fact, you better not use one because you don't need the distributed part of it, and you definitely want to be able to control the money supply. A centralized electronic system or a paper-based system are all you need. Or maybe use Taler[1] if you want some cool tech with bleeding edge cryptography. [1]: https://taler.net/en/
And in those cases there could be censorship and manipulation you're not aware of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I cited something extremely relevant (a platform that uses blockchain to digitize real estate), and correctly disclaim that I am involved, and you downvoted me. I would have appreciated a comment and/or a reason for the downvote.
If you're actually in good faith confused on the downvotes I think it's because people are so sick of hearing and reading people shilling their pet "blockchain for X" company/idea/coin
1) I was involved, I am no longer involved, despite, as mentioned, I still have a vested interest in the company.
2) We had an opportunity to do an ICO in 2017/2018, and we didn't, because we've been sick of the crypto bullshit long before most others have been, and because we wanted to build a serious business, not a scam.
3) It's actually a clever way to use the Blockchain for something useful (transactions as public proof, and tokens as unique identifiers that hold property of a trust, all perfectly compatible with the existing legal structure).
I think it's unfair to quickly downvote someone just because of a general sentiment. I was trying to contribute to the conversation, and I also had a disclaimer of my involvement with the company I was citing.
Anyway. I'll just keep disagreeing with the few that decided to downvote me.