5 ms·

> This is one of the 'very few, very specific' use cases that blockchains are good at. Blockchains are providing no value here, as the parent keeps saying.

kybernetikos 5y ago
> keeps saying Well yes, but I'm looking for something substantive rather than just repeated disagreement [Edit: this was unfair, Fabian2k's comments are all thoughtful and substantive, even if I disagree with where the balance falls]. My claim is that smart contracts can provide value by providing a payment process that is more transparent and verifiable. I'm still not clear whether the disagreement is based on * believing that having a more transparent and verifiable payment process is not valuable, * or that smart contracts don't provide more transparent and verifiable payment processes than the typical insurance industry approach, * or that smart contracts do provide more transparent and verifiable payment processes, but that there are other technologies that would be better at doing that (in which case, what are they?)
- fabian2k 5y ago
  In the specific example from AXA the payments didn't go via the blockchain, so there is absolutely no advantage to it here. If the payment also is handled via the blockchain, there is a large number of potential concerns here. For me, I don't see how the really minor benefit here would be worth the rather big unknown risks. One important aspect here is that in fully automated systems like this, exploits are also much more efficient and can affect many more people at once. It is also not clear to me how this would work for insurance at all. For automated and verifiable payment you need to deposit the funds into the contract somehow, and that is simply not how insurance works. If the insurance companies had do lock down funds like this, that business model simply would not exist. So in practice this would have to be some mechanism that only deposits a fraction of the funds. And then I, as a consumer that bought some insurance there would also be vulnerable if someone cleaned out that pool of money, e.g. by exploiting a flawed oracle or risk estimation process. I don't understand enough of the details here to actually judge the risk, but to me that is a point against the entire thing.
- rideontime 5y ago
  Why did you use that example if you agree that it wasn't a good use of blockchain technology?

kybernetikos 5y ago

> keeps saying Well yes, but I'm looking for something substantive rather than just repeated disagreement [Edit: this was unfair, Fabian2k's comments are all thoughtful and substantive, even if I disagree with where the balance falls]. My claim is that smart contracts can provide value by providing a payment process that is more transparent and verifiable. I'm still not clear whether the disagreement is based on * believing that having a more transparent and verifiable payment process is not valuable, * or that smart contracts don't provide more transparent and verifiable payment processes than the typical insurance industry approach, * or that smart contracts do provide more transparent and verifiable payment processes, but that there are other technologies that would be better at doing that (in which case, what are they?)

fabian2k 5y ago
In the specific example from AXA the payments didn't go via the blockchain, so there is absolutely no advantage to it here. If the payment also is handled via the blockchain, there is a large number of potential concerns here. For me, I don't see how the really minor benefit here would be worth the rather big unknown risks. One important aspect here is that in fully automated systems like this, exploits are also much more efficient and can affect many more people at once. It is also not clear to me how this would work for insurance at all. For automated and verifiable payment you need to deposit the funds into the contract somehow, and that is simply not how insurance works. If the insurance companies had do lock down funds like this, that business model simply would not exist. So in practice this would have to be some mechanism that only deposits a fraction of the funds. And then I, as a consumer that bought some insurance there would also be vulnerable if someone cleaned out that pool of money, e.g. by exploiting a flawed oracle or risk estimation process. I don't understand enough of the details here to actually judge the risk, but to me that is a point against the entire thing.
rideontime 5y ago
Why did you use that example if you agree that it wasn't a good use of blockchain technology?