4 ms·
I think the question is: Why then deal with all those inefficiencies and cost of distributed computation, mining, and broadcast transactions, if you need courts
by mondoveneziano 5y ago
I think the question is: Why then deal with all those inefficiencies and cost of distributed computation, mining, and broadcast transactions, if you need courts to override decisions anyway, and insurance to cover yourself when something goes wrong? You can already "automate" without smart contracts.
- aaronharnly 5y agoI share the general skepticism, but I am open to the idea that (much like other electronic commerce), the smart contracts might make 99% of transactions much more efficient; so the expensive manual interventions are only used on a small proportion. Of course, it is not necessarily obvious that blockchain-powered smart contracts are the only way — or the best way — to achieve that automation and efficiency!
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- mondoveneziano 5y ago> the smart contracts might make 99% of transactions much more efficient The entire point of proof-of-work is that it is inefficient, by design. Efficiency is counteracted: Advances in technology that lead to more efficient mining techniques directly mean the difficulty for the next block being adjusted up. Operating on traditional databases (where automation is regularly implemented, too) is orders of magnitude more efficient. Because like most other things other than proof-of-work, those processes directly benefit from getting more efficient.
- trompetenaccoun 5y agoPoW wasn't designed to be more efficient, the Nakamoto consensus type implementation exists to improve honesty and security. There is no traditional database that's as secure as a blockchain, it's always a tradeoff between security/immutability and efficiency. But since efficiency does matter many 2nd generation chains have moved away from PoW.