5 ms·

> Sure it can. It would be expensive and slow, but certainly possible. Forgive my imprecision, when I said "a smart contract cannot run a scraper" I meant to s

> Sure it can. It would be expensive and slow, but certainly possible. Forgive my imprecision, when I said "a smart contract cannot run a scraper" I meant to suggest that it is prohibitively slow, expensive and impractical to do so, like if I said "a macbook cannot render the motion picture Frozen". > Sure it can You are conspicuously lacking an explanation of how a smart contract can execute a deed. Still, even if it could, the point is that decentralization is totally useless in this venture. We could envision the exact same scenario you described with centralized software operated by a neutral party and a written contract that spells out identical terms. > You argue against yourself here. Your issue with the off-chain scraper is one of trust- ‘how do I know it won’t change its behavior?’ I ask you the same question: how do I know a centralized server will not change my contract, or delete it? You're misunderstanding. I'm not arguing against myself, what I'm trying to explain is that the smart contract doesn't solve the problem of trust because the only thing that matters (who the court says is right) works exactly the same whether you're dealing with a smart contract or a real one. > With a distributed smart contract, you can be sure that if you audit the deployed code, it cannot be changed without your knowledge. This is not a benefit, this is just another problem that has to be solved, all you've done is replace a lawyer with a software analyst (who retains a lawyer for when they OK a smart contract that gets hacked), except it's also slow and expensive for the sake of decentralization. > The contract is really more of a trustless escrow system. It holds the legal contract for all parties securely, and ensures that no single bad-actor can change it. Centralized escrow systems already do this job fine. There is no lack of reliable escrow services. > You don’t know that. If enough projects got funded this way-big if- lenders could buy, sell trade their positions. It doesn't matter who is funding them, they have no liquidity because the government does not recognize tokens as units of ownership in property.

jasonlaramburu 9y ago
All your recent comments (on this thread and others) are anti-blockchain. However you provide no tangible argument other than ‘centralized servers already do this fine.’ Ever seen the clip of Ballmer talking about the original iPhone? He says it will fail because it’s slow, expensive and you can already send email using a blackberry. That POV has not aged well. You’re right, centralized servers can execute the computations just fine. A reason people are excited about ethereum is that they have serious misgivings that the operators of central servers are truly ‘neutral’ parties. With distributed systems built in blockchain, you can always audit the code before you enter a contract. I do not know of any widely-used centralized service that allows this. Yes, a smart contract can execute a physical document. One way (of many) would be hellosign/docusign but running on ethereum main net. Of course this is only necessary if you want to produce a signature that looks handwritten (not essential for the doc to be legally-binding in the USA).
- root_axis 9y ago
  > All your recent comments (on this thread and others) are anti-blockchain This has nothing to do with the merit of the argument. > you provide no tangible argument other than ‘centralized servers already do this fine. This is a strong argument because the cost of blockchain decentralization is extremely expensive so it has to provide a very compelling value to be worthwhile. > Ever seen the clip of Ballmer talking about the original iPhone? He says it will fail because it’s slow, expensive and you can already send email using a blackberry. That POV has not aged well. That's not a "POV", it's a criticism that can be applied to any expensive alternative, whether or not the criticism is accurate depends on the specific circumstances, so trotting out an example of when someone incorrectly evaluated the value proposition of the expensive alternative does not prove anything. Additionally, this entire reply is a complete red herring because this discussion is not about the potential future successes of blockchain technology, it's about the usefulness of this specific example (selling blockchain tokens as shares of ownership in a property). The bottom line is that nothing is gained by using a smart-contract, but they are slow and expensive so using them is worse than a trusted centralized system.
  - jasonlaramburu 9y ago
    Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Maybe you can trust a system you or your colleagues design and maintain, but any 3rd party centralized system can be manipulated. In its current state, a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust. You may not value that as much as others, but it certainly doesn’t make blockchain ‘worse.’ And yes, I think the fact that all your comments disparage blockchain shows you may have simply already made up your mind. WRT the OP, the question was ‘is this possible?’ I have shown that is technically possible to finance a home purchase via crypto tokens, assuming one can find interested investors. Whether the solution is of value to you personally is totally irrelevant.
    - root_axis 9y ago
      > Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the NYSE? Those are trusted centralized systems that work just fine every day and process more transactions than any blockchain can hope to acheieve. > a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust No it doesn't in any meaningful way. I need to trust that my tokens will be recognized as a legal share of ownership in the property, all the smart-contract can do is give me confidence that the tokens are not counterfeit or double-spent, but this is obviously a non-issue with our current centralized system. Nobody is concerned about counterfeit Apple stock. There is no benefit to using a smart-contract because it does not solve a problem (in this case). Are there situations where a smart-contract could be useful? Probably, but attempting to tokenize the equity of your home is not one of them and you've completed failed to demonstrate otherwise.

jasonlaramburu 9y ago

All your recent comments (on this thread and others) are anti-blockchain. However you provide no tangible argument other than ‘centralized servers already do this fine.’ Ever seen the clip of Ballmer talking about the original iPhone? He says it will fail because it’s slow, expensive and you can already send email using a blackberry. That POV has not aged well. You’re right, centralized servers can execute the computations just fine. A reason people are excited about ethereum is that they have serious misgivings that the operators of central servers are truly ‘neutral’ parties. With distributed systems built in blockchain, you can always audit the code before you enter a contract. I do not know of any widely-used centralized service that allows this. Yes, a smart contract can execute a physical document. One way (of many) would be hellosign/docusign but running on ethereum main net. Of course this is only necessary if you want to produce a signature that looks handwritten (not essential for the doc to be legally-binding in the USA).

root_axis 9y ago
> All your recent comments (on this thread and others) are anti-blockchain This has nothing to do with the merit of the argument. > you provide no tangible argument other than ‘centralized servers already do this fine. This is a strong argument because the cost of blockchain decentralization is extremely expensive so it has to provide a very compelling value to be worthwhile. > Ever seen the clip of Ballmer talking about the original iPhone? He says it will fail because it’s slow, expensive and you can already send email using a blackberry. That POV has not aged well. That's not a "POV", it's a criticism that can be applied to any expensive alternative, whether or not the criticism is accurate depends on the specific circumstances, so trotting out an example of when someone incorrectly evaluated the value proposition of the expensive alternative does not prove anything. Additionally, this entire reply is a complete red herring because this discussion is not about the potential future successes of blockchain technology, it's about the usefulness of this specific example (selling blockchain tokens as shares of ownership in a property). The bottom line is that nothing is gained by using a smart-contract, but they are slow and expensive so using them is worse than a trusted centralized system.
- jasonlaramburu 9y ago
  Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Maybe you can trust a system you or your colleagues design and maintain, but any 3rd party centralized system can be manipulated. In its current state, a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust. You may not value that as much as others, but it certainly doesn’t make blockchain ‘worse.’ And yes, I think the fact that all your comments disparage blockchain shows you may have simply already made up your mind. WRT the OP, the question was ‘is this possible?’ I have shown that is technically possible to finance a home purchase via crypto tokens, assuming one can find interested investors. Whether the solution is of value to you personally is totally irrelevant.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    > Your entire argument depends on something that does not really exist, a ‘trusted centralized system.’ Of course there is, what do you call the NASDAQ or the NYSE? Those are trusted centralized systems that work just fine every day and process more transactions than any blockchain can hope to acheieve. > a smart contract sacrifices speed and cost but eliminates the need for trust No it doesn't in any meaningful way. I need to trust that my tokens will be recognized as a legal share of ownership in the property, all the smart-contract can do is give me confidence that the tokens are not counterfeit or double-spent, but this is obviously a non-issue with our current centralized system. Nobody is concerned about counterfeit Apple stock. There is no benefit to using a smart-contract because it does not solve a problem (in this case). Are there situations where a smart-contract could be useful? Probably, but attempting to tokenize the equity of your home is not one of them and you've completed failed to demonstrate otherwise.