5 ms·

I'm trying to understand. You're saying that you wouldn't be able to perform online votes or surveys and remotely send money without a blockchain? Could you e

I'm trying to understand. You're saying that you wouldn't be able to perform online votes or surveys and remotely send money without a blockchain? Could you expand more on what functionality that the blockchain provides that the other solutions in this space (online surveys and remotely send money) don't?

tintor 5y ago
They don't have to trust each other. ie. No need to have a dedicated treasurer.
- jhrmnn 5y ago
  In the end, someone has power over the things in the real world, like releasing a version of the software or purchasing stuff. So everyone involved has to trust that someone at the least.
  - neiman 5y ago
    Open-source has the great advantage that it's auditable by everyone, hence the trust is distributed. That's a comment for open-source in general, not about blockchains.
    - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
      Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read, but the percentage of people able and willing to do so is quite low. Accepting pull requests is also limited to a set of individuals.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read Which code? Just your client code, or the code that miners and brokers and exchanges run on their servers, too? If the claim is the latter, how do you know that the published source code actually corresponds to the executables they're running?
  - Thorrez 5y ago
    If the developer introduces a major change, it'll fork the chain. Everyone on the old version of the software will see one chain, everyone on the new version will see the new chain. If not many people switch, the old chain will be the valuable one. So it's kind of a voting system where the community as a whole votes. If the vote isn't decisive, both chains have value. As far as purchasing stuff, there's no central purchaser that I can think of.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > If the developer introduces a major change, it'll fork the chain. Everyone on the old version of the software will see one chain, everyone on the new version will see the new chain. Why? Can't the system keep using the same chain, or is this just convention? If any software change required a fork, you couldn't do even the most trivial of bug fixes (say, fix a typo in the UI, or whatever). But I notice you said "major change"; so who decides what's "major" and what isn't? On which grounds?
      - Thorrez 5y ago
        It's not convention. If it's possible to create a transaction that one version thinks is valid, and the other doesn't, someone will create such a transaction, it will be included in the chain that accepts it if that side has the majority of the hash power, and the other one will reject it. Thus you will have 2 chains (not to be confused with 2 Chainz). The definition of "major change" in this case is a change that changes the definition of a valid block or transaction.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  Ah yes. Unlike that recent issue with a smart contract that was "verified by community" and then drained all wallets of money.
  - neiman 5y ago
    Which one?
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      Any of them. There are so many it's hard to keep track. https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ Filter by hack/scam and look for all "error in contract code"
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
neiman 5y ago
Sure. "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. I literally just struggled for a month with a transfer that included 3 countries, none of them is English speaking. It required letters from banks, accountants, plenty of forms of different countries, translations, stuff which is lost in translation (the bank was unhappy with the word selection of a non-English speaker accountant, for example), different formats, different standards and navigating countless options and tricks in order to avoid ridiculous exchange and transfer fees. This was for a "simple" action in the real world, involving me and a regular seller of something. Now take this and try to divide donations between 5 participants of your project, each from a different country and a different language. Good luck with that. Hwoever, in my open source project we did the same thing in 20 seconds with crypto. Not because we avoid tax (we don't), but because the international mechanism is cumbersome and inaccessible if you're not an expert, and expensive probably even if you are. We manage the donations/profits with votings, and are not familiar with a platform offering a safe way to do that in our settings. Besides, my experience with platforms for open source projects (or in general) is bad. There is no one platform offering all the services we need, so we end up having dozens of accounts (which is actually a source of tension, because when you offer to use a new platform, an argument starts with those who "have enough accounts in their life"). Moreover, platforms eventually close, so you get stuck (migration is a hard thing to do). Let me ask a question that maybe will look at it from a different angle. Which problems remotely sending money and online platforms solve that crypto has for managing votings and finance of an international online open source project? Seems to me it beings 100% extra problems and 0% solutions.
- eterm 5y ago
  > "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. Technologically it is not. Which is why anyone in the EU can instantly send money to anywhere else in the EU, for free, despite being a collection of 27 countries with dozens of different languages and legacy banking systems. The hurdles are legal and regulatory, not technical. Blockchain and new technology does not solve the underlying problem at all.
  - neiman 5y ago
    Part of the transaction I described (which was personal) involved a bank transfer between two EU states, and it's simply not true. It's not instantly, doesn't work 24/7 (a transaction made on Friday arrived on Tuesday), and you have to find plenty of tricks to avoid high fees and super bad exchange rates (EU has more than one currency, you know).

tintor 5y ago

They don't have to trust each other. ie. No need to have a dedicated treasurer.

jhrmnn 5y ago
In the end, someone has power over the things in the real world, like releasing a version of the software or purchasing stuff. So everyone involved has to trust that someone at the least.
- neiman 5y ago
  Open-source has the great advantage that it's auditable by everyone, hence the trust is distributed. That's a comment for open-source in general, not about blockchains.
  - faeyanpiraat 5y ago
    Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read, but the percentage of people able and willing to do so is quite low. Accepting pull requests is also limited to a set of individuals.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read Which code? Just your client code, or the code that miners and brokers and exchanges run on their servers, too? If the claim is the latter, how do you know that the published source code actually corresponds to the executables they're running?
- Thorrez 5y ago
  If the developer introduces a major change, it'll fork the chain. Everyone on the old version of the software will see one chain, everyone on the new version will see the new chain. If not many people switch, the old chain will be the valuable one. So it's kind of a voting system where the community as a whole votes. If the vote isn't decisive, both chains have value. As far as purchasing stuff, there's no central purchaser that I can think of.
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    > If the developer introduces a major change, it'll fork the chain. Everyone on the old version of the software will see one chain, everyone on the new version will see the new chain. Why? Can't the system keep using the same chain, or is this just convention? If any software change required a fork, you couldn't do even the most trivial of bug fixes (say, fix a typo in the UI, or whatever). But I notice you said "major change"; so who decides what's "major" and what isn't? On which grounds?
    - Thorrez 5y ago
      It's not convention. If it's possible to create a transaction that one version thinks is valid, and the other doesn't, someone will create such a transaction, it will be included in the chain that accepts it if that side has the majority of the hash power, and the other one will reject it. Thus you will have 2 chains (not to be confused with 2 Chainz). The definition of "major change" in this case is a change that changes the definition of a valid block or transaction.
dmitriid 5y ago
Ah yes. Unlike that recent issue with a smart contract that was "verified by community" and then drained all wallets of money.
- neiman 5y ago
  Which one?
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    Any of them. There are so many it's hard to keep track. https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ https://web3isgoinggreat.com/ Filter by hack/scam and look for all "error in contract code"
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

neiman 5y ago

Sure. "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. I literally just struggled for a month with a transfer that included 3 countries, none of them is English speaking. It required letters from banks, accountants, plenty of forms of different countries, translations, stuff which is lost in translation (the bank was unhappy with the word selection of a non-English speaker accountant, for example), different formats, different standards and navigating countless options and tricks in order to avoid ridiculous exchange and transfer fees. This was for a "simple" action in the real world, involving me and a regular seller of something. Now take this and try to divide donations between 5 participants of your project, each from a different country and a different language. Good luck with that. Hwoever, in my open source project we did the same thing in 20 seconds with crypto. Not because we avoid tax (we don't), but because the international mechanism is cumbersome and inaccessible if you're not an expert, and expensive probably even if you are. We manage the donations/profits with votings, and are not familiar with a platform offering a safe way to do that in our settings. Besides, my experience with platforms for open source projects (or in general) is bad. There is no one platform offering all the services we need, so we end up having dozens of accounts (which is actually a source of tension, because when you offer to use a new platform, an argument starts with those who "have enough accounts in their life"). Moreover, platforms eventually close, so you get stuck (migration is a hard thing to do). Let me ask a question that maybe will look at it from a different angle. Which problems remotely sending money and online platforms solve that crypto has for managing votings and finance of an international online open source project? Seems to me it beings 100% extra problems and 0% solutions.

eterm 5y ago
> "Remotely send money" is a super hard thing to do. Technologically it is not. Which is why anyone in the EU can instantly send money to anywhere else in the EU, for free, despite being a collection of 27 countries with dozens of different languages and legacy banking systems. The hurdles are legal and regulatory, not technical. Blockchain and new technology does not solve the underlying problem at all.
- neiman 5y ago
  Part of the transaction I described (which was personal) involved a bank transfer between two EU states, and it's simply not true. It's not instantly, doesn't work 24/7 (a transaction made on Friday arrived on Tuesday), and you have to find plenty of tricks to avoid high fees and super bad exchange rates (EU has more than one currency, you know).