5 ms·

> Could it be done without crypto? Almost certainly. But I think the article's flyby description gives the thing room to sound much sillier than it really is.

> Could it be done without crypto? Almost certainly. But I think the article's flyby description gives the thing room to sound much sillier than it really is. The particular irony here is that blockchains are a giant waste of energy compared to non-blockchain approaches, so of all the things to say “Do X with blockchain” about, “Reduce carbon emissions” is an odd choice. If it were me I’d think you’d want to put I extra effort to not have a blockchain based solution, but I have a feeling the idea cane about from “what can we do with a blockchain” rather than “what is the best solution to this problem?”

eropple 8y ago
So I am on record around here as kinda thinking that cryptocurrency people are worse than coal-rollers with the cavalier garbage they do to our planet, but it's worth pointing out that a "blockchain" need not do that--cryptocurrency needs to do that because it has to be "hard" to create some kind of phantom scarcity and therefore rarity and therefore perceived value for the Ponzi schemers at the top of them to sell to the next sucker in line. Blockchain multi-party verification can be fairly fast when you take out the grift. Well, that grift. The buzzword-solution-searching-for-a-problem grift, as you note, is still very much in play.
zeroxfe 8y ago
> The particular irony here is that blockchains are a giant waste of energy compared to non-blockchain approaches Not all blockchains are proof-of-work. Almost all modern implementations (particularly for federated blockchains like OPs) use more power-efficient consensus algorithms. (I don't have an opinion on whether blockchains are the best solution to their problem, but a decentralized marketplace for carbon offsets does sound compelling.)
- wlesieutre 8y ago
  That's true. I did quickly skim their website, figuring if they were doing a particular efficient blockchain that it would be the kind of thing they'd want to brag about. Didn't see anything, but also didn't go digging into the whitepaper.
- hencq 8y ago
  Why does the marketplace need to be decentralized? The NYSE is centralized, but that doesn't seem to inhibit trading. The EU has a carbon cap and trade system (ETS) and while there is a fair bit to criticize about it, I don't think its centralized nature is one.
  - pushtheenvelope 8y ago
    Your question is very valid and good. i think having it be decentralized is a good way to build trust and transparency. It also protects one against the marketplace-operator acting against the interests of or favoring any one party. Consider how Amazon now exploits its marketplace for its own benefit by analyzing which products are doing well and making their own versions of these products. So, there is potential for the marketplace-operator to become non-neutral. I'm not sure how the NYSE started, but i suspect there are financial regulations governing its operations. These regulations take time to get established, and so in new fields having a decentralized marketplace that can guarantee neutrality (collectively) of the operators feels worthwhile. Does that make sense? i'm kinda on the fence myself, and trying to present the argument in-favor.
    - skybrian 8y ago
      Okay, but you'd still have to compare it with the scheme used by certificate transparency, which also builds a public, verifiable log. I'd be pretty confident in an organization that does it that way.
    - blacksmith_tb 8y ago
      That seems reasonable, but in a decentralized market don't we lose the ability to halt trading[1]? 1: https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html
      - pushtheenvelope 8y ago
        ooh that's a good question. I'd think of that on two levels: 1. a meta-level: all designs of systems have tradeoffs. There is no perfect system. So, by decentralizing we may have to tradeoff the ability to halt trading, in exchange for getting more openness, transparency and neutrality of the marketplace or its operators. 2. specific design: i think there may be ways of achieving this even in a decentralized fashion. Many use-cases of smart-contracts (i.e. a program run in a blockchain transaction) have envisioned the need for having an "oracle" or external data source. For example, flight-delay insurance contracts (e.g. on etherisc.com) that payout in case of a flight delay would need to get information from some flight-info APIs. To serve this need, there are projects for building decentralized-oracles (e.g. https://chain.link https://chain.link). Similarly, one can imagine the SEC creates an oracle through a system like ChainLink. This oracle has an api that indicates whether some asset's trading status is ON or OFF. Smart-contracts running the marketplace/exchange on the blockchain have code that reaches out to the SEC oracle before proceeding with a transaction to exchange or sell some asset (i'm describing this synchronously, but it could be done asynchronously).
- village-idiot 8y ago
  Oh good, we replaced proof of work with a proof of stake system rife with conflicts of interest and unknown incentives. That’ll go well.

eropple 8y ago

So I am on record around here as kinda thinking that cryptocurrency people are worse than coal-rollers with the cavalier garbage they do to our planet, but it's worth pointing out that a "blockchain" need not do that--cryptocurrency needs to do that because it has to be "hard" to create some kind of phantom scarcity and therefore rarity and therefore perceived value for the Ponzi schemers at the top of them to sell to the next sucker in line. Blockchain multi-party verification can be fairly fast when you take out the grift. Well, that grift. The buzzword-solution-searching-for-a-problem grift, as you note, is still very much in play.

zeroxfe 8y ago

> The particular irony here is that blockchains are a giant waste of energy compared to non-blockchain approaches Not all blockchains are proof-of-work. Almost all modern implementations (particularly for federated blockchains like OPs) use more power-efficient consensus algorithms. (I don't have an opinion on whether blockchains are the best solution to their problem, but a decentralized marketplace for carbon offsets does sound compelling.)

wlesieutre 8y ago
That's true. I did quickly skim their website, figuring if they were doing a particular efficient blockchain that it would be the kind of thing they'd want to brag about. Didn't see anything, but also didn't go digging into the whitepaper.
hencq 8y ago
Why does the marketplace need to be decentralized? The NYSE is centralized, but that doesn't seem to inhibit trading. The EU has a carbon cap and trade system (ETS) and while there is a fair bit to criticize about it, I don't think its centralized nature is one.
- pushtheenvelope 8y ago
  Your question is very valid and good. i think having it be decentralized is a good way to build trust and transparency. It also protects one against the marketplace-operator acting against the interests of or favoring any one party. Consider how Amazon now exploits its marketplace for its own benefit by analyzing which products are doing well and making their own versions of these products. So, there is potential for the marketplace-operator to become non-neutral. I'm not sure how the NYSE started, but i suspect there are financial regulations governing its operations. These regulations take time to get established, and so in new fields having a decentralized marketplace that can guarantee neutrality (collectively) of the operators feels worthwhile. Does that make sense? i'm kinda on the fence myself, and trying to present the argument in-favor.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Okay, but you'd still have to compare it with the scheme used by certificate transparency, which also builds a public, verifiable log. I'd be pretty confident in an organization that does it that way.
  - blacksmith_tb 8y ago
    That seems reasonable, but in a decentralized market don't we lose the ability to halt trading[1]? 1: https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html https://www.sec.gov/fast-answers/answerstradinghalthtm.html
    - pushtheenvelope 8y ago
      ooh that's a good question. I'd think of that on two levels: 1. a meta-level: all designs of systems have tradeoffs. There is no perfect system. So, by decentralizing we may have to tradeoff the ability to halt trading, in exchange for getting more openness, transparency and neutrality of the marketplace or its operators. 2. specific design: i think there may be ways of achieving this even in a decentralized fashion. Many use-cases of smart-contracts (i.e. a program run in a blockchain transaction) have envisioned the need for having an "oracle" or external data source. For example, flight-delay insurance contracts (e.g. on etherisc.com) that payout in case of a flight delay would need to get information from some flight-info APIs. To serve this need, there are projects for building decentralized-oracles (e.g. https://chain.link https://chain.link). Similarly, one can imagine the SEC creates an oracle through a system like ChainLink. This oracle has an api that indicates whether some asset's trading status is ON or OFF. Smart-contracts running the marketplace/exchange on the blockchain have code that reaches out to the SEC oracle before proceeding with a transaction to exchange or sell some asset (i'm describing this synchronously, but it could be done asynchronously).
village-idiot 8y ago
Oh good, we replaced proof of work with a proof of stake system rife with conflicts of interest and unknown incentives. That’ll go well.