3 ms·

All your recent comments (on this thread and others) are anti-blockchain. However you provide no tangible argument other than ‘centralized servers already do th

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
      The tokens would allow you to access a share of the payback on the loan, or the executed deed in the event of default confirming your interest. You are correct, tokens are not securities. As I understand OP’s question is whether or not this is technically possible (not whether this is an actual problem worth solving). It is technically possible. You have only shown why it might be risky or undesirable.

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
    The tokens would allow you to access a share of the payback on the loan, or the executed deed in the event of default confirming your interest. You are correct, tokens are not securities. As I understand OP’s question is whether or not this is technically possible (not whether this is an actual problem worth solving). It is technically possible. You have only shown why it might be risky or undesirable.