5 ms·

crypto lovers really don't understand that there is value to existing real-world "archaic" systems

rattlesnakedave 6y ago
you can build replicas of archaic systems on top of crypto based systems for better UX, while still maintaining the possibility of self custody for those that desire it. The inverse is not true.
- sparkie 6y ago
  This is just adding unwanted complexity to an otherwise simple problem. The purpose of a distributed cryptographic ledger is that no authority may commit to it without the required cryptographic private keys. If you have some party who can commit to the ledger arbitrarily, or who has a skeleton key, then you don't need the distributed ledger - you just need a centralized ledger with replication (far more efficient). Any situation where ownership is enforced by a central party is a poor fit for this technology. You either want the cryptographic keys to secure the property, or you want the humans in charge to secure the property through a legal system. There is no sensible marriage between these systems. A system controlled by humans undermines cryptographic security, and a system controlled by cryptography obsoletes human control. Therefore, the only thing worth owning w.r.t a digital ledger is the digital token itself. As a proxy for anything else, a digital token cannot assert right of ownership.
scotu 6y ago
they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;) anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud. I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)
- tim333 6y ago
  Or a mix of slow and fast. Like for voting I was thinking maybe give you an ID and passcode to vote online via a web form but then as well as an electronic tally "Joe Blogs is voter ID 12343473" is sent to a printer and "ID 12343473 voted Trump" to another printer with the results going in a big heap. That way people can't find what you voted without going through two huge stacks of paper which would presumably be guarded anyway but there is a paper record to audit / recount people worry the votes are wrong. Though I guess you still have the issue of people offering to buy your id+code. I guess with a house owner token you could trade it electronically but have to go register the change and a government office within 30 days for something for it to be legally valid.
  - scotu 6y ago
    but why? there is literally no need for that kind of tech in elections. That aspect of election ain't broken, don't fix it
    - tim333 6y ago
      I guess I was thinking ease of voting rather than having to trek to a polling station. But yeah I see your point especially in places like the UK where no one complains much about the system.
      - whateveracct 6y ago
        vote by mail is a way simpler & proven way to make voting easier

you can build replicas of archaic systems on top of crypto based systems for better UX, while still maintaining the possibility of self custody for those that desire it. The inverse is not true.

sparkie 6y ago
This is just adding unwanted complexity to an otherwise simple problem. The purpose of a distributed cryptographic ledger is that no authority may commit to it without the required cryptographic private keys. If you have some party who can commit to the ledger arbitrarily, or who has a skeleton key, then you don't need the distributed ledger - you just need a centralized ledger with replication (far more efficient). Any situation where ownership is enforced by a central party is a poor fit for this technology. You either want the cryptographic keys to secure the property, or you want the humans in charge to secure the property through a legal system. There is no sensible marriage between these systems. A system controlled by humans undermines cryptographic security, and a system controlled by cryptography obsoletes human control. Therefore, the only thing worth owning w.r.t a digital ledger is the digital token itself. As a proxy for anything else, a digital token cannot assert right of ownership.

scotu 6y ago

they might understand, but they also want to profit as much as possible on it ;) anyway, I like to talk about "archaic" systems in terms of fast and slow (rather than old/archaic/obsolete. for example when I talk about the reason why election processes should not be "computerized"/networked it's because you want a slow system, it's a feature. The slow system gives you a slow result (but in an acceptable time), but it also avoids fast/at scale fraud. I think slow while still holding slightly negative connotation is not as negative as archaic and other option (slow food is good)

tim333 6y ago
Or a mix of slow and fast. Like for voting I was thinking maybe give you an ID and passcode to vote online via a web form but then as well as an electronic tally "Joe Blogs is voter ID 12343473" is sent to a printer and "ID 12343473 voted Trump" to another printer with the results going in a big heap. That way people can't find what you voted without going through two huge stacks of paper which would presumably be guarded anyway but there is a paper record to audit / recount people worry the votes are wrong. Though I guess you still have the issue of people offering to buy your id+code. I guess with a house owner token you could trade it electronically but have to go register the change and a government office within 30 days for something for it to be legally valid.
- scotu 6y ago
  but why? there is literally no need for that kind of tech in elections. That aspect of election ain't broken, don't fix it
  - tim333 6y ago
    I guess I was thinking ease of voting rather than having to trek to a polling station. But yeah I see your point especially in places like the UK where no one complains much about the system.
    - whateveracct 6y ago
      vote by mail is a way simpler & proven way to make voting easier