4 ms·

I would largely agree that the use cases are niche at the moment. For example, enabling ownership of a domain name without requiring the trust of a central part

I would largely agree that the use cases are niche at the moment. For example, enabling ownership of a domain name without requiring the trust of a central party. It may be worth noting, Ethereum has only been around for 6 years, and prior to it there was not a lot of focus in the blockchain space on ownerless program execution and immutable state (smart contracts).

lottin 5y ago
Notice that blockchains have no notion of property rights. As far as the blockchain is concerned whoever controls the asset (i.e. has the password to the wallet) owns it. For example, if the owner loses the password, or has the password stolen, they no longer own the asset. This is a big problem. Imagine that if when someone stole your car they automatically owned it! The lack of property rights is one of the reasons blockchains are not suitable for almost anything.
- dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
  Have you ever heard that "posession is nine-tenths of the law"? Well... this is a system in which "posession is ten-tenths of the law". This has obvious disadvantages (as you pointed out), but it also has a clear advantage: it becomes trivial to figure out who effectively owns something within the system (whoever controls/posesses the associated key). Just because a system doesn't encode/enforce "property laws", doesn't necessarily mean that it is useless. In fact, few systems (if any) formally encode property laws: that is always something imposed from the outside. If someone steals your crypto keys, you can still use the (normal) court system to get your assets back (assuming you have some way of proving that you own the assets, and you know who stole them from you). Does the Internet encode/enforce property laws? No. If someone (e.g.) copies your stuff, you're still forced to go to the court system (just like when someone "steals" crypto from you). Does that make the Internet "not suitable for almost anything", just because it doesn't automatically enforce property laws?
  - lottin 5y ago
    The internet wasn't invented to keep track of who owns what. It was invented to transmit information and it does an excellent job at that. The blockchain, on the other hand, was invented to keep track of who owns that. That's its only purpose. The fact it doesn't and can't enforce property rights, which, it could be argued, are pretty essential for that purpose, appears to indicate that blockchains do suffer from a fatal design flaw. At least that's the way I see it.
    - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
      > The blockchain, on the other hand, was invented to keep track of who owns that. That's its only purpose. Well.. its purpose is to enable transactions between people, and not keep track of legal ownership of things. In fact, these networks usually don't make any claim about who legally owns anything: only about who controls something (i.e. who owns it within the system, not who owns it in the legal sense). Does physical cash keep track of who actually owns it (and not just "who posesses it")? No. Does that make it useless or fatally flawed for the purpose of "value exchange"? Not really. If you receive a 10 USD bill from someone as payment, you have to assume that they own that bill (and didn't just steal from anyone else). The bill itself doesn't enforce property law. Furthermore, if you have lax security and a pickpocket takes your wallet (with 500 USD inside), you also have little recourse or method to enforce your ownership of the stolen cash. In fact, you probably even have less recourse than with things on blockchains: there's no way of tracking where cash goes, after someone steals it from you. Is the fact that "cash" doesn't encode/enforce your property rights over it a problem that prevents "cash" from being effectively used a medium of value exchange between people? As far as I can tell, no. Just like with "blockchains", if someone steals your cash, or anything else, you need to go to a court to get things fixed. I understand your argument and accept that such properties of the system could be seen as "design flaws" (though... how could you even fix such design flaws? "law" is not a formal system). On the other hand, if such properties were "fatal design flaws" (for the purpose of a system of value exchange between economical agents), then plain vanilla cash is just as flawed, if not more (since it does not encode or enforce your property rights, and it's even less traceable than blockchain "assets").

lottin 5y ago

Notice that blockchains have no notion of property rights. As far as the blockchain is concerned whoever controls the asset (i.e. has the password to the wallet) owns it. For example, if the owner loses the password, or has the password stolen, they no longer own the asset. This is a big problem. Imagine that if when someone stole your car they automatically owned it! The lack of property rights is one of the reasons blockchains are not suitable for almost anything.

dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
Have you ever heard that "posession is nine-tenths of the law"? Well... this is a system in which "posession is ten-tenths of the law". This has obvious disadvantages (as you pointed out), but it also has a clear advantage: it becomes trivial to figure out who effectively owns something within the system (whoever controls/posesses the associated key). Just because a system doesn't encode/enforce "property laws", doesn't necessarily mean that it is useless. In fact, few systems (if any) formally encode property laws: that is always something imposed from the outside. If someone steals your crypto keys, you can still use the (normal) court system to get your assets back (assuming you have some way of proving that you own the assets, and you know who stole them from you). Does the Internet encode/enforce property laws? No. If someone (e.g.) copies your stuff, you're still forced to go to the court system (just like when someone "steals" crypto from you). Does that make the Internet "not suitable for almost anything", just because it doesn't automatically enforce property laws?
- lottin 5y ago
  The internet wasn't invented to keep track of who owns what. It was invented to transmit information and it does an excellent job at that. The blockchain, on the other hand, was invented to keep track of who owns that. That's its only purpose. The fact it doesn't and can't enforce property rights, which, it could be argued, are pretty essential for that purpose, appears to indicate that blockchains do suffer from a fatal design flaw. At least that's the way I see it.
  - dkshdkjshdk 5y ago
    > The blockchain, on the other hand, was invented to keep track of who owns that. That's its only purpose. Well.. its purpose is to enable transactions between people, and not keep track of legal ownership of things. In fact, these networks usually don't make any claim about who legally owns anything: only about who controls something (i.e. who owns it within the system, not who owns it in the legal sense). Does physical cash keep track of who actually owns it (and not just "who posesses it")? No. Does that make it useless or fatally flawed for the purpose of "value exchange"? Not really. If you receive a 10 USD bill from someone as payment, you have to assume that they own that bill (and didn't just steal from anyone else). The bill itself doesn't enforce property law. Furthermore, if you have lax security and a pickpocket takes your wallet (with 500 USD inside), you also have little recourse or method to enforce your ownership of the stolen cash. In fact, you probably even have less recourse than with things on blockchains: there's no way of tracking where cash goes, after someone steals it from you. Is the fact that "cash" doesn't encode/enforce your property rights over it a problem that prevents "cash" from being effectively used a medium of value exchange between people? As far as I can tell, no. Just like with "blockchains", if someone steals your cash, or anything else, you need to go to a court to get things fixed. I understand your argument and accept that such properties of the system could be seen as "design flaws" (though... how could you even fix such design flaws? "law" is not a formal system). On the other hand, if such properties were "fatal design flaws" (for the purpose of a system of value exchange between economical agents), then plain vanilla cash is just as flawed, if not more (since it does not encode or enforce your property rights, and it's even less traceable than blockchain "assets").