3 ms·
You have a cryptographic proof with a timestamp that you transacted with the individual, who then failed to follow through. Do you, though? One large problem
by mootothemax 11y ago
You have a cryptographic proof with a timestamp that you transacted with the individual, who then failed to follow through.
Do you, though?
One large problem with bitcoin is that you cannot prove that you don't own a given address.
IF this is also true for Ethereum, all you really get is proof that you sent money to an address; not that the address necessarily belongs to anyone.
- jpereira 11y agoWell the address would be registered into the Slock.it system, so you have proof that a certain lock belongs to a certain address. In a way though your point still stands, a user could always claim that someone else put the listing up or someother situation beyond their control, UNLESS there is previous history within the slock.it ecosystem, which would be very easy to see.
- readysetmain 11y agoSlock.it sounds like brain crack. They spend all their time writing few paragraph blog posts and no code is produced. Even if it was produced, why would someone use an easy to game system over a centralized system with insurance and a dispute system?
- nomercypercy 11y agoSo slock.it is going to need a central registry of all users. You realize that storing that much data on the blockchain and interacting with it will likely end up using more money then they would make in fees.
- halomru 11y agoBut you can prove that you controll an address. To solve your concern you only transact with people who have proven in a publicly verifiable way that they control the address they provided you with.
- mootothemax 11y ago>To solve your concern you only transact with people who have proven in a publicly verifiable way that they control the address they provided you with. And how can those people prove that they didn't receive your money? As in, I want to dispute that the address you've sent money to is under my control.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]