4 ms·

> Only if the authorities ceded their power to the blockchain, in which case this situation is unlikely to arise. Great! Let's do it. It might take a few thous

> Only if the authorities ceded their power to the blockchain, in which case this situation is unlikely to arise. Great! Let's do it. It might take a few thousand years but this doesn't represent a problem with blockchain technology. The authority can and should still be around to enforce the blockchain, but they should still have to respect it. >By replacing it with electronic fraud, which is much easier to do at scale and harder to disprove. If a good phish / zero-day gets you a house’s worth of money, even more people will try it. This is an argument against electronic records, not blockchain specifically. They are side channel attacks. > and you also have new problems like the possibility of someone claiming a malicious transaction years ago. What do you mean by this? Maybe an example would help.

acdha 5y ago
> This is an argument against electronic records, not blockchain specifically. They are side channel attacks. What makes it a blockchain problem is removing the safeguards. If you are saying the blockchain is an immutable record controlled by individual private keys, you are saying that any mistake is permanent. If you allow corrections, you don’t need the expense of a blockchain. > > and you also have new problems like the possibility of someone claiming a malicious transaction years ago. > What do you mean by this? Maybe an example would help. I go to buy your house. You show me the chain saying you own it. A month later, someone says you phished their grandfather who was in hospice (or that the transaction was made by a spouse without approval, etc.) and now there’s a dispute about whether the transaction was authorized. Traditionally this is handled with third parties who can confirm that, say, they had everyone in the same room and checked ID. Moving to a model where access to a private key is all that matters requires similar solutions before you can say it removes the need for title insurance.
- grog454 5y ago
  > What makes it a blockchain problem is removing the safeguards. If you are saying the blockchain is an immutable record controlled by individual private keys, you are saying that any mistake is permanent. If you allow corrections, you don’t need the expense of a blockchain. That makes sense. I think the need to correct mistakes, and mistakes I concede will definitely happen, is debatable. There are benefits to some for correcting mistakes and costs to some for it as well. Figuring out whether the benefit exceeds the cost is way out of my scope. This reminds me of another problem that I've I haven't seen mentioned yet. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/13/half-a-billion-in-bitcoin-lost-in-the-dump https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/13/half-a-billion... In a fixed supply cryptocurrency like bitcoin these kind of losses will inevitably lead to deflation. > Moving to a model where access to a private key is all that matters requires similar solutions before you can say it removes the need for title insurance. You're right, and I was careful not to say "all" of the needs for title insurance. I think its worth considering the possibility that not being able to correct even that emotionally charged dying grandfather case, and instead seeking recompense between the two parties most directly involved in the crime (the grandfather and me in your example) is OK. For example, I'm now required to purchase a newly minted and desirably worthless "restitution" NFT from the grandfather for the price I sold the house (or the market value, or w/e is fair), or I go to jail. If we try to backtrack the whole transaction, you are now probably being harmed as well. Is that really better? What if we figure this out 10 years after the initial sale, and the property has changed hands 5 times already. Good luck rolling that back. Edit: I have just started reading the bitcoin whitepaper and at least half of the introduction is about the possible benefits of the irreversibility of transactions. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
  - p1esk 5y ago
    Looking at this thread it's not clear if any one of the 3 examples you provided (civil forfeiture, title fraud, need for title insurance) would benefit from crypto technology today, and it's not clear if they would ever benefit from it (3 thousand years from now is not a good argument). I hope you realize how unconvincing all this sounds to a non-enthusiast. Without a killer application (like email for the internet) I'm afraid crypto isn't very useful, and it's been 13 years without a killer application.
    - grog454 5y ago
      What exactly isn't clear? How cryptography works / benefits people? How applying cryptography to ledgers and ownership databases works? Or how it's all going to be enforced? By the way I'm not pro crypto in that I'm not trying to convince people to put money into it. I think the energy costs of all crypto token systems are prohibitively high right now. That, and the deflation problem I personally think are the biggest unsolved problems in Bitcoin right now.. But somehow I can't even get past what a cryptographic ledger is and how it's beneficial on this forum, of all forums. Yikes. I've been patiently explaining my understanding of the ideas behind crypto. 3Blue1Brown seems to be favorably received on this forum, so maybe this will help educate you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 NFTs are a natural extension of a cryptographic ledger as it's explained in that video. It's just adding non fungible tokens to the otherwise fungible bitcoin tokens being exchanged on the blockchain, and we'd like those non fungible tokens to represent real world objects, rather than just USD. Aside: I feel like we're in the dark age of cryptocurrencies right now. People are just incredibly unimaginable. I imagine 7,000 years ago there was a guy named Bob who wanted to trade his apples for some oranges. A girl named Alice wanted some apples but didn't have any oranges so instead she offers a piece of gold jewelry. Most of the Bob's on this forum would tell her to ** off. But there was some Bob who accepted the gold jewelry realizing he could then exchange that jewelry for Tom's oranges. Suddenly we went from a barter society to one that uses a currency. Eventually we stopped using gold as a currency and started using slips of paper with lots of fancy counterfeit protection mechanisms like blue and red threads and fancy inks. Along comes cryptocurrency with mathematically provable counterfeit protection mechanisms, and no one sees the benefit. I just don't get it.
ben_w 5y ago
> The authority can and should still be around to enforce the blockchain, but they should still have to respect it. Why? I’m serious, by the way. This seems like the same sort of thinking I see in supporters of various anarcho-x-isms, where whichever x is substituted in, it is somehow retained despite the anarchy. You might like the shiny new thing, but anyone whose job it is to enforce the things shiny does, can do that at much lower cost by using the current mechanisms instead of the shiny.
- grog454 5y ago
  Because that cost is, at least theoretically, offset by additional benefits. I'm not arguing in favor of reduced authority. People seem to conflate decentralization with anarchy. I'd like to be able to not even have to think about this happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how_to_avoid_title_fraud_on_paidoff_home/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how... I'd like to know that when I sell something on Craigslist, the currency I'm receiving for my good isn't counterfeit. I'd like to know that when I receive $50 on Venmo/Paypal out of the blue:(https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/q60vnv/venmo_payment_from_stranger_then_a_request_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/q60vnv/ven...) I don't have to wonder whether that $50 is legitimate, or about to vanish when Venmo realizes they got scammed. Better hope you didn't send the $50 back to the scammer, because somehow your transaction is more "authentic" than the scammer's, and Venmo's still going to disappear $50 from your account. Oh and if someone writes me a fraudulent check and I cash it out, I'd better have some lawyers ready.
  - ben_w 5y ago
    > People seem to conflate decentralization with anarchy. Heh, I’m sorry I guess I phrased that badly. I’m saying there is an authority in all anarcho-x-isms, one which proponents ignore. My intention was to suggest an analogy of that hidden authority in blockchains, in that everything blockchain can do, can also be done cheaper by having a trusted party do the conventional stuff, and in some cases — such as legal disputes, where you have to bring in a trusted mediator — you end up with all the weaknesses of both the conventional approach and blockchain. > I'd like to be able to not even have to think about this happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how... We all would, but blockchains don’t prevent that. If anything it makes the problem more likely, because the current status quo is reversible in a court when sufficient evidence is supplied, but in the blockchain, possession of the private key is ownership. Private keys get lost and stolen all the time even for relatively trivial things; in the case of property ownership, even if the private key is permanently offline — e.g. existing only in the form of a QR code on a sheet of paper in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard” — for something as valuable as property, you can bet it would be stolen. > I'd like to know that when I receive $50 on Venmo/Paypal out of the blue: To which the direct counterpart is: what happens on a blockchain if you get scammed and want your money back? Do you really want the authorities to do what the blockchain says, or do you want your money back?

acdha 5y ago

> This is an argument against electronic records, not blockchain specifically. They are side channel attacks. What makes it a blockchain problem is removing the safeguards. If you are saying the blockchain is an immutable record controlled by individual private keys, you are saying that any mistake is permanent. If you allow corrections, you don’t need the expense of a blockchain. > > and you also have new problems like the possibility of someone claiming a malicious transaction years ago. > What do you mean by this? Maybe an example would help. I go to buy your house. You show me the chain saying you own it. A month later, someone says you phished their grandfather who was in hospice (or that the transaction was made by a spouse without approval, etc.) and now there’s a dispute about whether the transaction was authorized. Traditionally this is handled with third parties who can confirm that, say, they had everyone in the same room and checked ID. Moving to a model where access to a private key is all that matters requires similar solutions before you can say it removes the need for title insurance.

grog454 5y ago
> What makes it a blockchain problem is removing the safeguards. If you are saying the blockchain is an immutable record controlled by individual private keys, you are saying that any mistake is permanent. If you allow corrections, you don’t need the expense of a blockchain. That makes sense. I think the need to correct mistakes, and mistakes I concede will definitely happen, is debatable. There are benefits to some for correcting mistakes and costs to some for it as well. Figuring out whether the benefit exceeds the cost is way out of my scope. This reminds me of another problem that I've I haven't seen mentioned yet. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/13/half-a-billion-in-bitcoin-lost-in-the-dump https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2021/12/13/half-a-billion... In a fixed supply cryptocurrency like bitcoin these kind of losses will inevitably lead to deflation. > Moving to a model where access to a private key is all that matters requires similar solutions before you can say it removes the need for title insurance. You're right, and I was careful not to say "all" of the needs for title insurance. I think its worth considering the possibility that not being able to correct even that emotionally charged dying grandfather case, and instead seeking recompense between the two parties most directly involved in the crime (the grandfather and me in your example) is OK. For example, I'm now required to purchase a newly minted and desirably worthless "restitution" NFT from the grandfather for the price I sold the house (or the market value, or w/e is fair), or I go to jail. If we try to backtrack the whole transaction, you are now probably being harmed as well. Is that really better? What if we figure this out 10 years after the initial sale, and the property has changed hands 5 times already. Good luck rolling that back. Edit: I have just started reading the bitcoin whitepaper and at least half of the introduction is about the possible benefits of the irreversibility of transactions. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf
- p1esk 5y ago
  Looking at this thread it's not clear if any one of the 3 examples you provided (civil forfeiture, title fraud, need for title insurance) would benefit from crypto technology today, and it's not clear if they would ever benefit from it (3 thousand years from now is not a good argument). I hope you realize how unconvincing all this sounds to a non-enthusiast. Without a killer application (like email for the internet) I'm afraid crypto isn't very useful, and it's been 13 years without a killer application.
  - grog454 5y ago
    What exactly isn't clear? How cryptography works / benefits people? How applying cryptography to ledgers and ownership databases works? Or how it's all going to be enforced? By the way I'm not pro crypto in that I'm not trying to convince people to put money into it. I think the energy costs of all crypto token systems are prohibitively high right now. That, and the deflation problem I personally think are the biggest unsolved problems in Bitcoin right now.. But somehow I can't even get past what a cryptographic ledger is and how it's beneficial on this forum, of all forums. Yikes. I've been patiently explaining my understanding of the ideas behind crypto. 3Blue1Brown seems to be favorably received on this forum, so maybe this will help educate you: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBC-nXj3Ng4 NFTs are a natural extension of a cryptographic ledger as it's explained in that video. It's just adding non fungible tokens to the otherwise fungible bitcoin tokens being exchanged on the blockchain, and we'd like those non fungible tokens to represent real world objects, rather than just USD. Aside: I feel like we're in the dark age of cryptocurrencies right now. People are just incredibly unimaginable. I imagine 7,000 years ago there was a guy named Bob who wanted to trade his apples for some oranges. A girl named Alice wanted some apples but didn't have any oranges so instead she offers a piece of gold jewelry. Most of the Bob's on this forum would tell her to ** off. But there was some Bob who accepted the gold jewelry realizing he could then exchange that jewelry for Tom's oranges. Suddenly we went from a barter society to one that uses a currency. Eventually we stopped using gold as a currency and started using slips of paper with lots of fancy counterfeit protection mechanisms like blue and red threads and fancy inks. Along comes cryptocurrency with mathematically provable counterfeit protection mechanisms, and no one sees the benefit. I just don't get it.

ben_w 5y ago

> The authority can and should still be around to enforce the blockchain, but they should still have to respect it. Why? I’m serious, by the way. This seems like the same sort of thinking I see in supporters of various anarcho-x-isms, where whichever x is substituted in, it is somehow retained despite the anarchy. You might like the shiny new thing, but anyone whose job it is to enforce the things shiny does, can do that at much lower cost by using the current mechanisms instead of the shiny.

grog454 5y ago
Because that cost is, at least theoretically, offset by additional benefits. I'm not arguing in favor of reduced authority. People seem to conflate decentralization with anarchy. I'd like to be able to not even have to think about this happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how_to_avoid_title_fraud_on_paidoff_home/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how... I'd like to know that when I sell something on Craigslist, the currency I'm receiving for my good isn't counterfeit. I'd like to know that when I receive $50 on Venmo/Paypal out of the blue:(https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/q60vnv/venmo_payment_from_stranger_then_a_request_for/ https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/q60vnv/ven...) I don't have to wonder whether that $50 is legitimate, or about to vanish when Venmo realizes they got scammed. Better hope you didn't send the $50 back to the scammer, because somehow your transaction is more "authentic" than the scammer's, and Venmo's still going to disappear $50 from your account. Oh and if someone writes me a fraudulent check and I cash it out, I'd better have some lawyers ready.
- ben_w 5y ago
  > People seem to conflate decentralization with anarchy. Heh, I’m sorry I guess I phrased that badly. I’m saying there is an authority in all anarcho-x-isms, one which proponents ignore. My intention was to suggest an analogy of that hidden authority in blockchains, in that everything blockchain can do, can also be done cheaper by having a trusted party do the conventional stuff, and in some cases — such as legal disputes, where you have to bring in a trusted mediator — you end up with all the weaknesses of both the conventional approach and blockchain. > I'd like to be able to not even have to think about this happening: https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how https://www.reddit.com/r/personalfinance/comments/pywwnp/how... We all would, but blockchains don’t prevent that. If anything it makes the problem more likely, because the current status quo is reversible in a court when sufficient evidence is supplied, but in the blockchain, possession of the private key is ownership. Private keys get lost and stolen all the time even for relatively trivial things; in the case of property ownership, even if the private key is permanently offline — e.g. existing only in the form of a QR code on a sheet of paper in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying “Beware of the Leopard” — for something as valuable as property, you can bet it would be stolen. > I'd like to know that when I receive $50 on Venmo/Paypal out of the blue: To which the direct counterpart is: what happens on a blockchain if you get scammed and want your money back? Do you really want the authorities to do what the blockchain says, or do you want your money back?