3 ms·

> Also, does the word permissionless ring a bell? a door with no lock it's perrmissionless how does this solve the issue of authoritarian governments? > You

> Also, does the word permissionless ring a bell? a door with no lock it's perrmissionless how does this solve the issue of authoritarian governments? > You have no idea how smart contracts work, do you? I was writing smart contracts in solidity in 2015 at least it was something new back then... but back on topic, what if they payment is never sent and "some time" is forever? can you tell me what tools can the poor Bob use to claim what is legitimately his in your perrmissionless world? how would you encode the "work completed" in a smart contract? should nodes run by people in the Philipines vote on Bob's work, when Bob lives in Yowa and only wanted to be paid for keeping the gardens in his neighborhood clean (as per job description)?

throwaway405769 5y ago
I think you're being disingenuous since it's hard to believe that you still don't understand this. 1. Alice hires Bob to do a job. 2. Alice deposits money into the timelocked escrow smart contract. 3. Bob signals that the job is done. 4. If Alice signals that it's all good, Bob can withdraw his paycheck from the escrow. 5. If Alice is not happy with the job, she has predetermined amount of time to raise a dispute and get it settled, to decide whether Bob gets the money. 6. If Alice is not available for some reason and just disappears, Bob will still get his paycheck, although after waiting for the predetermined time.
- peoplefromibiza 5y ago
  > to raise a dispute and get it settled, to decide whether Bob gets the money. who decides? and how? and what are the consequences for Bob and Alice? and what happens if Alice or Bob are not happy with the verdict? > Alice is not available for some reason and just disappears, Bob will still get his paycheck it's fun you don't see any problem and think of this as an acceptable solution, even if it fails in its most basic form. You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money. In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future. Money that at the beginning they do not possess. Basically credit does not exist in your world, but you still think that it's better for the poor folks. But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her? do you ever stop to think about real life? genuinely curious. (not to sound harsh, but you just reinvented escrow accounts, in a more complex way...)
  - throwaway405769 5y ago
    >who decides? and how I was talking about Kleros at the beginning of the discussion, but it's just one possible option. >You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money. No, you can only hire someone for a job using this specific method if you have the money beforehand. This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him. >In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future. There can be other smart contracts which allow this. The cool thing about them is that Bob is always fully aware whether his employer has the funds to pay him or it's just an IOU. >But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her? This is outside of our threat model. We're designing a smart contract for employing a freelancer, not high value SC where murder would be economically viable. If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder.
    - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
      > I was talking about Kleros so a private service that need people to invest money in ether to participate... Is this your idea of justice? Some faceless arbiter, subject to nobody? Why I am not surprised that your ideas closely match how authoritarian system (and dystopian cyber punk worlds) work? > This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him. But he's not sure he's going to actually pay and he's not even sure who the employer is. > If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder. You're avoiding the answer, and I understand you, it's hard to come with an answer when your design have bugs. But smart contracts are immutable pieces of code that act on their own. If Alice dies Bob get his money. There no way to stop it from happening. the chain is a useless tinsel in this example of yours, it makes things more complex and guarantees no one. The law already encodes tons of conditions that a smart contract could never comply with. What if Bob is a minor or the employer is a minor? That would make the contract void in real life. Should people publish their personal info on the public blockchain so that the smart contract can exclude them from proposing or accepting a job? And how do you check that the informations are correct? What if Bob is an immigrant running from a regime and has no way to prove who he is, but needs the job to survive? etc etc you'd need to basically recreate what government do today, without the enforcement of the law capability. who would trust a system like that, except outlaws and scammers?

throwaway405769 5y ago

I think you're being disingenuous since it's hard to believe that you still don't understand this. 1. Alice hires Bob to do a job. 2. Alice deposits money into the timelocked escrow smart contract. 3. Bob signals that the job is done. 4. If Alice signals that it's all good, Bob can withdraw his paycheck from the escrow. 5. If Alice is not happy with the job, she has predetermined amount of time to raise a dispute and get it settled, to decide whether Bob gets the money. 6. If Alice is not available for some reason and just disappears, Bob will still get his paycheck, although after waiting for the predetermined time.

peoplefromibiza 5y ago
> to raise a dispute and get it settled, to decide whether Bob gets the money. who decides? and how? and what are the consequences for Bob and Alice? and what happens if Alice or Bob are not happy with the verdict? > Alice is not available for some reason and just disappears, Bob will still get his paycheck it's fun you don't see any problem and think of this as an acceptable solution, even if it fails in its most basic form. You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money. In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future. Money that at the beginning they do not possess. Basically credit does not exist in your world, but you still think that it's better for the poor folks. But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her? do you ever stop to think about real life? genuinely curious. (not to sound harsh, but you just reinvented escrow accounts, in a more complex way...)
- throwaway405769 5y ago
  >who decides? and how I was talking about Kleros at the beginning of the discussion, but it's just one possible option. >You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money. No, you can only hire someone for a job using this specific method if you have the money beforehand. This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him. >In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future. There can be other smart contracts which allow this. The cool thing about them is that Bob is always fully aware whether his employer has the funds to pay him or it's just an IOU. >But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her? This is outside of our threat model. We're designing a smart contract for employing a freelancer, not high value SC where murder would be economically viable. If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder.
  - peoplefromibiza 5y ago
    > I was talking about Kleros so a private service that need people to invest money in ether to participate... Is this your idea of justice? Some faceless arbiter, subject to nobody? Why I am not surprised that your ideas closely match how authoritarian system (and dystopian cyber punk worlds) work? > This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him. But he's not sure he's going to actually pay and he's not even sure who the employer is. > If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder. You're avoiding the answer, and I understand you, it's hard to come with an answer when your design have bugs. But smart contracts are immutable pieces of code that act on their own. If Alice dies Bob get his money. There no way to stop it from happening. the chain is a useless tinsel in this example of yours, it makes things more complex and guarantees no one. The law already encodes tons of conditions that a smart contract could never comply with. What if Bob is a minor or the employer is a minor? That would make the contract void in real life. Should people publish their personal info on the public blockchain so that the smart contract can exclude them from proposing or accepting a job? And how do you check that the informations are correct? What if Bob is an immigrant running from a regime and has no way to prove who he is, but needs the job to survive? etc etc you'd need to basically recreate what government do today, without the enforcement of the law capability. who would trust a system like that, except outlaws and scammers?