5 ms·

> but that's no worse than regular loans If the blockchain isn't enforcing payback, then it's just a normal transfer of money from one party to another. There'

> but that's no worse than regular loans If the blockchain isn't enforcing payback, then it's just a normal transfer of money from one party to another. There's no smart contract needed.

lbradstreet 9y ago
You still need to be able to transfer the loan from party to party, and allow parties to prove ownership of the loan. That's not a complex contract obviously, but it's important.
- habitue 9y ago
  OK, that makes sense. Just using it as a ledger for a blob of text about the loan
vasilipupkin 9y ago
it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways. It doesn't have to be a zero or 1 proposition. It's like saying cloud is not needed because we can do it on the desktop
- runeks 9y ago
  > it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways. Can you provide an example of this?
  - vasilipupkin 9y ago
    ok, so say I need to distribute payments. If I transfer money to a wallet and then a smart contract automatically takes care of sending the right amounts to the right wallets, it could be more convenient than current payment distribution solutions, no?
    - clappski 9y ago
      I think that's a poor example for the following reasons; * if it's a one off payment to all recipients, why not just send it manually? * what happens when you need to add or remove recipients? Compared to just phoning up the bank to amend a standing order. * what happens if you accidentally pay someone the wrong amount? * what happens if you lose your wallet and you can't continue paying? I would rather have a bank handle all of the edge cases and provide the consumer protections I want out of a payments/account system than some random script that I (or someone I have to pay) has to maintain that could be responsible for vast amounts of funds.
      - vasilipupkin 9y ago
        Sure, you can use the bank. Internally, the bank could do this on the chain though and give you all those protections, so you don't even need to do know the details
        clappski 9y ago
        But why would the bank use the chain, the financial web of trust is already there and doesn't need to use a chain to facilitate internal or external transfers of monies. It would be a huge time sink with no real benefit to the consumer or the shareholders.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        And yet banks are experimenting with blockchains, no?
        lambdadmitry 9y ago
        They do, it's just that the way they do that has nothing to do with ETH or BTC http://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-distributed-ledger-designed-for-financial-services http://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-di...
    - 9y ago

> but that's no worse than regular loans If the blockchain isn't enforcing payback, then it's just a normal transfer of money from one party to another. There's no smart contract needed.

lbradstreet 9y ago

You still need to be able to transfer the loan from party to party, and allow parties to prove ownership of the loan. That's not a complex contract obviously, but it's important.

habitue 9y ago
OK, that makes sense. Just using it as a ledger for a blob of text about the loan

vasilipupkin 9y ago

it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways. It doesn't have to be a zero or 1 proposition. It's like saying cloud is not needed because we can do it on the desktop

runeks 9y ago
> it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways. Can you provide an example of this?
- vasilipupkin 9y ago
  ok, so say I need to distribute payments. If I transfer money to a wallet and then a smart contract automatically takes care of sending the right amounts to the right wallets, it could be more convenient than current payment distribution solutions, no?
  - clappski 9y ago
    I think that's a poor example for the following reasons; * if it's a one off payment to all recipients, why not just send it manually? * what happens when you need to add or remove recipients? Compared to just phoning up the bank to amend a standing order. * what happens if you accidentally pay someone the wrong amount? * what happens if you lose your wallet and you can't continue paying? I would rather have a bank handle all of the edge cases and provide the consumer protections I want out of a payments/account system than some random script that I (or someone I have to pay) has to maintain that could be responsible for vast amounts of funds.
    - vasilipupkin 9y ago
      Sure, you can use the bank. Internally, the bank could do this on the chain though and give you all those protections, so you don't even need to do know the details
      - clappski 9y ago
        But why would the bank use the chain, the financial web of trust is already there and doesn't need to use a chain to facilitate internal or external transfers of monies. It would be a huge time sink with no real benefit to the consumer or the shareholders.
        vasilipupkin 9y ago
        And yet banks are experimenting with blockchains, no?
        lambdadmitry 9y ago
        They do, it's just that the way they do that has nothing to do with ETH or BTC http://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-distributed-ledger-designed-for-financial-services http://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-di...
  - 9y ago