4 ms·
Yes and no. In the examples given it's wrong, since it's not a topic where blockchain applies. But the moment you order any of these products, having a blockcha
by erikb 8y ago
Yes and no. In the examples given it's wrong, since it's not a topic where blockchain applies. But the moment you order any of these products, having a blockchain that includes buyer and seller might be nice, since you can lock-in the agreement of sale with neither side being able to take it back, and without a third party needed for proof. So it's totally possible to use it for something else besides coins.
- bunderbunder 8y agoThe agreement of sale itself is such a very small part of the potential sources of disputes (not even disputes, necessarily, sometimes just glitches) between buyer and seller, though. I'd rather have a single system that can handle all the potential problems, as well as most redress in the event that something goes wrong. Since the usual redress when something goes wrong on either the buyer's or the seller's end, in my experience, consists of nullifying the agreement of sale, it seems to me like blockchain's solution consists of grossly misinterpreting the needs and motives of both parties (By starting from an assumption of zero trust, which is just silly, why on earth would I buy from a retailer in whom I have zero trust?) and then hyper-optimizing for that misinterpretation. It's classic solution-in-search-of-problem behavior.