4 ms·

But all your examples are possible (and have been successfully implemented) without a blockchain. So what does the chain add? Besides which, when is turning ab

But all your examples are possible (and have been successfully implemented) without a blockchain. So what does the chain add? Besides which, when is turning abundance into scarcity a good thing?

ThomPete 9y ago
A secondhand market no relying on a centralized player is the goal, someone who cant control what can be sold and resold. That cannot be done without de-centealized network.
- joosters 9y ago
  The only project that comes somewhat close to that is OpenBazaar, and that is buggy and unwieldy, despite four years of development and millions in funding. The implementation requires a complex mess of software installs (even for potential buyers!), trusted moderators (how exactly do you trust a random unknown username on a pseudo-anonymous market anyway?) and an appalling user experience. The installation page tells me that I shouldn't risk large amounts of money, so even the developers aren't confident in their system. On top of all that, the 'decentralized' part is a pipedream anyway, there's no other implementation of the marketplace and everyone ends up having to trust thousands of lines of code. Under the hood, there's likely to be some centralized control, since the OpenBazaar investors most likely want to earn some money, which is through commission on sales. If it was actually decentralized, then everyone would be able to run their own version and avoid paying the commission in the first place.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    You are proving my point. It should not be in control at any one company specifically.
sah2ed 9y ago
> Besides which, when is turning abundance into scarcity a good thing? To limit the illegal reproduction of information goods (movies, TV shows, ebooks) which have zero marginal costs. This is why DRM was invented -- to offer control to copyright holders by creating the illusion of scarcity of information goods which are costly to produce but can be reproduced by anyone at zero cost.
- krrrh 9y ago
  How does a blockchain limit illegal reproduction? Having an record of ownership ain’t gonna shut down the torrents whether it’s in a database in Apple’s data center, or on a blockchain. How does this square with blockchain-related projects like IPFS which basically make it impossible to stop piracy?
  - sah2ed 9y ago
    Sorry if my reply implied that the blockchain is somehow comparable to DRM -- they are not. I was merely talking about the effects of the blockchain. The outcome of using a blockchain is identical to the outcome of using DRM: they both can be used to engender the illusion of scarcity of something that is not naturally scarce. Without (the illusion of) scarcity, the enforcement of property (or access) rights on the Internet would be impossible; blockchains and DRM enable their enforcement by maintaining records of "who has permission to what and for how long" which is why they are useful.
    - ThomPete 9y ago
      The illusion of scarcity isn't the point. The point is saving the unique history of an asset. Like leaving your footprint in the digital world like it was in the physical. The art-scene is based on this principle.

But all your examples are possible (and have been successfully implemented) without a blockchain. So what does the chain add? Besides which, when is turning abundance into scarcity a good thing?

ThomPete 9y ago

A secondhand market no relying on a centralized player is the goal, someone who cant control what can be sold and resold. That cannot be done without de-centealized network.

joosters 9y ago
The only project that comes somewhat close to that is OpenBazaar, and that is buggy and unwieldy, despite four years of development and millions in funding. The implementation requires a complex mess of software installs (even for potential buyers!), trusted moderators (how exactly do you trust a random unknown username on a pseudo-anonymous market anyway?) and an appalling user experience. The installation page tells me that I shouldn't risk large amounts of money, so even the developers aren't confident in their system. On top of all that, the 'decentralized' part is a pipedream anyway, there's no other implementation of the marketplace and everyone ends up having to trust thousands of lines of code. Under the hood, there's likely to be some centralized control, since the OpenBazaar investors most likely want to earn some money, which is through commission on sales. If it was actually decentralized, then everyone would be able to run their own version and avoid paying the commission in the first place.
- ThomPete 9y ago
  You are proving my point. It should not be in control at any one company specifically.

sah2ed 9y ago

> Besides which, when is turning abundance into scarcity a good thing? To limit the illegal reproduction of information goods (movies, TV shows, ebooks) which have zero marginal costs. This is why DRM was invented -- to offer control to copyright holders by creating the illusion of scarcity of information goods which are costly to produce but can be reproduced by anyone at zero cost.

krrrh 9y ago
How does a blockchain limit illegal reproduction? Having an record of ownership ain’t gonna shut down the torrents whether it’s in a database in Apple’s data center, or on a blockchain. How does this square with blockchain-related projects like IPFS which basically make it impossible to stop piracy?
- sah2ed 9y ago
  Sorry if my reply implied that the blockchain is somehow comparable to DRM -- they are not. I was merely talking about the effects of the blockchain. The outcome of using a blockchain is identical to the outcome of using DRM: they both can be used to engender the illusion of scarcity of something that is not naturally scarce. Without (the illusion of) scarcity, the enforcement of property (or access) rights on the Internet would be impossible; blockchains and DRM enable their enforcement by maintaining records of "who has permission to what and for how long" which is why they are useful.
  - ThomPete 9y ago
    The illusion of scarcity isn't the point. The point is saving the unique history of an asset. Like leaving your footprint in the digital world like it was in the physical. The art-scene is based on this principle.