4 ms·

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. 1. Zero trust is highly optimal for business. When it is systemically impossible to cheat your vendor/custome

I think you are missing the forest for the trees. 1. Zero trust is highly optimal for business. When it is systemically impossible to cheat your vendor/customer, nobody even tries. Happy path only. 2. Good luck suing someone in a foreign jurisdiction with incompatible legal systems. Maybe that sex toy would be embarrassing on ones credit card and tagged to ones identity. Cryptocurrency (especially private cryptocurrencies like Zcash and Monero) offers an alternative to doxing yourself. 3. You miss the great innovation of SN: Preventing Double Spends. You cannot enforce double spend without a source of truth -- which was traditionally central server/banks. It was the Proof of Work that made the ledger distributed and censorship resistant, and it is the ledger that prevents double spends. And with Bitcoin, you have a limit of 21 million coins, which addresses SN's concern that central bankers ALWAYS inflate currency. So, no, existing tools did not suffice. That is why we have Bitcoin today.

nuerow 5y ago
> 1. Zero trust is highly optimal for business. When it is systemically impossible to cheat your vendor/customer, nobody even tries. Happy path only. I don't understand what point you tried to make, and frankly it sounds incoherent. Moreover, the weasel word "highly optimal" means nothing. You failed to present any value proposition, specially when discussing a solved problem. This is perhaps the main problem plaguing web3 proponents: they always fail to present any value proposition at all, and instead resort to all sorts of handwaving to try to distract away from that void > 2. Good luck suing someone in a foreign jurisdiction with incompatible legal systems. This statement fails to take into consideration the very notion of a jurisdiction, and somehow presumes that a shop in a country which chose to do trans-national business shouldn't have to deal with the legal implications of operating in another country. > 3. You miss the great innovation of SN: Preventing Double Spends. That is not innovation in commerce: it was already a solved problem before the inception of blockchain-based technologies.

nuerow 5y ago

> 1. Zero trust is highly optimal for business. When it is systemically impossible to cheat your vendor/customer, nobody even tries. Happy path only. I don't understand what point you tried to make, and frankly it sounds incoherent. Moreover, the weasel word "highly optimal" means nothing. You failed to present any value proposition, specially when discussing a solved problem. This is perhaps the main problem plaguing web3 proponents: they always fail to present any value proposition at all, and instead resort to all sorts of handwaving to try to distract away from that void > 2. Good luck suing someone in a foreign jurisdiction with incompatible legal systems. This statement fails to take into consideration the very notion of a jurisdiction, and somehow presumes that a shop in a country which chose to do trans-national business shouldn't have to deal with the legal implications of operating in another country. > 3. You miss the great innovation of SN: Preventing Double Spends. That is not innovation in commerce: it was already a solved problem before the inception of blockchain-based technologies.