3 ms·
You're right about everything but that we're the common trusted party. We have a relationship with the receiver. They want to be sure nothing happens in transit
by sebmellen 6y ago
You're right about everything but that we're the common trusted party. We have a relationship with the receiver. They want to be sure nothing happens in transit from origin. We do not have a business relationship with the transporters (many of whom are independent).
The way the transporters know they're getting a fair deal is precisely because we are not the source of truth — a database outside of our control is (a blockchain, in this case).
We're not voting on what is true, we're relying on the blockchain as an immutable representation of state. An append-only, distributed database that we do not control.
And please don't downvote my comments out of a misunderstanding. That's juvenile.
- Niksko 6y agoI don't want to malign the transporters in your business, but the chance that they actually meaningfully understand the nuance of this is slim to none. This is a trust problem. Either people trust you, or they don't. You've attempted to increase their trust in you by creating a system that would increase somebody's trust if they had your understanding of the underlying technology. Very few people have this, and the overlap between the people with that understanding and your customers and clients is vanishingly small.
- afarrell 6y ago> Either people trust you, or they don't. Trust really isn't binary. > would increase somebody's trust if they had your understanding of the underlying technology. Or if they had a handwaivey "I've heard that blockchain increases the verifiability of things" level of understanding.