3 ms·

> a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Do you believe that this is a permanent state, or a temporary one? Is there a potential bl

> a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Do you believe that this is a permanent state, or a temporary one? Is there a potential blockchain-like thing that could exist which would be better than a database and a contract? Because to me, the current system leaves room for improvement: - resolving conflicts across jurisdictions is extremely expensive - resolving conflicts even within one jurisdiction is more expensive than many transactions are worth Current blockchains are expensive and slow, but I think that we will see improvements over time which will eventually make blockchains (or something blockchain-like) look like appealing solutions.

pjc50 8y ago
The blockchain doesn't resolve disputes, it rules them out of scope. The response from blockchain advocates to vendor fraud is "caveat emptor". The dispute is still there.
- aboodman 8y ago
  I'm not sure I completely follow you, but there's nothing preventing a party from making use of the legal system or contracts or whatever in addition to a blockchain. I still think that making some common classes of dispute impossible is highly valuable.
  - pjc50 8y ago
    Which classes of dispute does blockchain make impossible? It can attest that a key signed a particular transaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was done by or intended by the owner. General purpose computer security just isn't quite good enough for that, that's why smartcards and secure enclaves exists.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 8y ago
If I say "you owe me $1000", and my Brazilian client says "no I don't", the current system offers a very speedy and cost-free resolution to that. We just have to do nothing, and the dispute will be resolved by default in favor of the client. I can imagine a blockchain-like thing that would be able to shift the default action, so that I get $1000 or maybe each of us gets $500. I can't imagine a blockchain-like thing that could, without an oracle both of us trust, actually reach into the real world and arbitrate the dispute. (If there is an oracle both of us trust, there's no need for a blockchain; the $1000 can just go directly into escrow with that oracle before I start working.)

pjc50 8y ago

The blockchain doesn't resolve disputes, it rules them out of scope. The response from blockchain advocates to vendor fraud is "caveat emptor". The dispute is still there.

aboodman 8y ago
I'm not sure I completely follow you, but there's nothing preventing a party from making use of the legal system or contracts or whatever in addition to a blockchain. I still think that making some common classes of dispute impossible is highly valuable.
- pjc50 8y ago
  Which classes of dispute does blockchain make impossible? It can attest that a key signed a particular transaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was done by or intended by the owner. General purpose computer security just isn't quite good enough for that, that's why smartcards and secure enclaves exists.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]

SpicyLemonZest 8y ago

If I say "you owe me $1000", and my Brazilian client says "no I don't", the current system offers a very speedy and cost-free resolution to that. We just have to do nothing, and the dispute will be resolved by default in favor of the client. I can imagine a blockchain-like thing that would be able to shift the default action, so that I get $1000 or maybe each of us gets $500. I can't imagine a blockchain-like thing that could, without an oracle both of us trust, actually reach into the real world and arbitrate the dispute. (If there is an oracle both of us trust, there's no need for a blockchain; the $1000 can just go directly into escrow with that oracle before I start working.)