4 ms·
The most natural follow-up to currencies on a blockchain are assets, like a ticket to a concert, shares in a company, or a deed to a car. Once more assets are
by carver 9y ago
The most natural follow-up to currencies on a blockchain are assets, like a ticket to a concert, shares in a company, or a deed to a car.
Once more assets are represented this way, many kinds of applications would be valuable. One simple and powerful example is escrow.
Enabling one-shot, instant escrow with strangers on the Internet has real-world benefits. For example, the current safest way to exchange Burning Man tickets is to meet someone in person, inspect the tickets and cash, and trade them by hand. If they were a blockchain asset, they could be traded nearly instantly and safely across the world. With a stable dollar asset, the official escrow service could even make it more difficult to sell above face value.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- pjc50 9y agoHow does the blockchain help? The important issue is the dispute between humans as to whether the tickets and money are valid. You can only do that if the transaction is atomic, which requires that the tickets and money are on the same blockchain and exchanged in the same transaction.
- Donzo 9y agoYes, the comment is premised on the future representation of assets in the blockchain. If the tickets were on the blockchain, they could be exchanged in the way that you describe.
- AroundTheBlock_ 9y agoIt doesn't. His example is nonsensical. The best use cases for smart contracts are gambling apps (i.e., financial markets, exchanges), escrow services (collateral-based trustless loans), and perhaps some identity services
- weego 9y agoPeople always seem to come up with gambling. No on in the gambling industry would want to have their business on top of a public blockchain so good theory but nope.
- a_tractor 9y agoPeople who say "gambling" are people who are either ignorant and don't know it, or, more likely, have some ulterior motive or malicious purpose, consciously or subconsciously, for associating cryptocurrency and blockchain technology with illegal, undesirable, or irrelevant/useless applications.
- pjc50 9y agoGiven US bans on online gambling, it's already been a market for crypto.
- drumdance 9y agoThere are already new gambling apps on the block chain. That existing players don't want this is irrelevant. Classic innovator's dilemma.
- carver 9y ago> You can only do that if the transaction is atomic, which requires that the tickets and money are on the same blockchain and exchanged in the same transaction. Yes, they should be on the same chain, so that the transaction is atomic. This is trivial to do in Ethereum (and other blockchains, presumably).
- TheLegace 9y agoI like your idea about using blockchains to represent assets. I have been thinking about something along those lines. But a whole set of interesting problem arises. That being the legal issues surrounding transferring ownership of assets globally. Not to mention issues of fraud and recourse when an agreement falls apart. I'd be curious to to have a chat with you about it. Send me an email.
- bpicolo 9y agoYou hit fun new issues like - how do you transfer assets when somebody is dead? No private keys, no hope.
- dfischer 9y agoDeadman switch?
- kang 9y agoThis looks like the start of slockit conversation proposing a DAO
- altern8tif 9y agoI've got a team exploring the idea of executing a smart contract that transfers assets (be it crypto-asset or real world assets) upon a specific real-world trigger event (via oracles). But you're right, the legal issues are a dime and a dozen. It'll take some time for the law to catch up (eg. digital wills). The technology is ready for this, we just need to right confluence of factors to make this a reality.
- TheLegace 9y agoI think it is interesting if the technology did it, but I'd want to know what incentives people would have to use it, since it would just make things more complicated. Maybe it lowers the cost of transferring assets, and there is the flexibility transferring to anyone on the planet. Maybe the use case is having funds in an escrow until both parties can verify that the transaction is cleared. I think there are trust companies that already do this. Maybe if people are motivated to deal with the legal(or private entities would exist to fill the need to simplify it) themselves it could work itself out. It could be that through this method less lawyers are involved. If the transfer of assets can be standardized or at least abstracted away for all/most countries in one system I could see why people could be interested in it. Also if your looking to sell an asset, or looking to buy an asset that you expect to increase in value, it might be interesting to have a global market to purchase/sell these assets with price signals for less risky or higher return assets.
- kang 9y ago> The most natural follow-up to currencies on a blockchain are assets Natural for marketing-team maybe but not for developers. They only seem natural because they both look like 'value' transfer. But there is a huge difference. The value in-case of currency-use is inherently generated using proof-of-work whereas there is no decentralised way to map a real asset to virtual token. So NO, none of these 'assets on the blockchain' are decentralized or even need blockchain non-trivially.