3 ms·

But in theory, a decentralized framework consisting of smart contracts and NFT’s could work. In such a framework, the NFT would be providing real utility (unlik

But in theory, a decentralized framework consisting of smart contracts and NFT’s could work. In such a framework, the NFT would be providing real utility (unlike scammy JPEG NFT’s)

SahAssar 4y ago
In such a framework how would you solve repossession? inheritance? seizure? How would any state authority be able to handle any case where the person supposed to hold the keys either is unwilling or unable to authorize a transaction that should legally go through? If I lost the keys (as in the keys to my blockchain wallet) to the NFT for my house should that plot of land just be abandoned forever? If a company gets hacked and their keys for all their assets (or stock) gets deleted should that company just close down forever even though nothing tangible actually changed? You cannot impose the rules of the blockchain on tangible assets. If your counter argument is to give some institutions the power to rewrite or add unauthorized transactions to the blockchain then you have simply reinvented the state, and lost all of the properties of a blockchain that make them interesting/valuable.
- eric_cc 4y ago
  You raise great points and I don’t have all the answers. But I don’t believe it’s impossible to achieve such a framework given the time to work out issues like those you’ve described. > you have simply reinvented the state If you could reinvent the state so that it is predictable, testable, and not subject to human corruption then I’d say it’s a good thing! And also quite the experiment haha
  - SahAssar 4y ago
    > If you could reinvent the state so that it is predictable, testable, and not subject to human corruption then I’d say it’s a good thing! I think you misunderstand my points. All the things you stated are simply not things we can achieve as absolutes in society or the physical world. The current rules of blockchains and smart contracts deal in absolutes, and when they can't they defer to oracles (which interface with the real world, so they have all the problems you stated). The real world is full of nuances, judgment calls and edge-cases which is why we have people who can adjudicate them. The points I listed in the parent comment are just a small fraction of the real world problems that would creep up in the first day of implementing this sort of system. From here on this is more opinion/political: If the discussion was about making laws more aligned with those points then the last place to start would be with crypto-tokens that have no real world impact (besides using a bunch of compute/resources). The place to start IMO would be to start removing exceptions from laws/taxes that don't make sense anymore, get the legal code down to a manageable size, introduce better accountability to our democracy and so many other steps. Starting with the tokens is destructive because it focuses energy at the wrong end of the problem and has clearly just led to most destructive parts of society (thieves, criminals, grifters, scammers, MLMs, etc.) to profit. It also makes people who see the obvious problems with it (I count myself among them) unwilling to participate so there is less force behind it even if it (against all odds) was a good idea. I think it's also clear that a proper system to solve these issues would not be based on the current technical platforms being built since those are incapable on a fundamental level to answer questions like the ones I asked.
postalrat 4y ago
How could it ever be decentralized if it requires laws to enforce?

But in theory, a decentralized framework consisting of smart contracts and NFT’s could work. In such a framework, the NFT would be providing real utility (unlike scammy JPEG NFT’s)

SahAssar 4y ago

In such a framework how would you solve repossession? inheritance? seizure? How would any state authority be able to handle any case where the person supposed to hold the keys either is unwilling or unable to authorize a transaction that should legally go through? If I lost the keys (as in the keys to my blockchain wallet) to the NFT for my house should that plot of land just be abandoned forever? If a company gets hacked and their keys for all their assets (or stock) gets deleted should that company just close down forever even though nothing tangible actually changed? You cannot impose the rules of the blockchain on tangible assets. If your counter argument is to give some institutions the power to rewrite or add unauthorized transactions to the blockchain then you have simply reinvented the state, and lost all of the properties of a blockchain that make them interesting/valuable.

eric_cc 4y ago
You raise great points and I don’t have all the answers. But I don’t believe it’s impossible to achieve such a framework given the time to work out issues like those you’ve described. > you have simply reinvented the state If you could reinvent the state so that it is predictable, testable, and not subject to human corruption then I’d say it’s a good thing! And also quite the experiment haha
- SahAssar 4y ago
  > If you could reinvent the state so that it is predictable, testable, and not subject to human corruption then I’d say it’s a good thing! I think you misunderstand my points. All the things you stated are simply not things we can achieve as absolutes in society or the physical world. The current rules of blockchains and smart contracts deal in absolutes, and when they can't they defer to oracles (which interface with the real world, so they have all the problems you stated). The real world is full of nuances, judgment calls and edge-cases which is why we have people who can adjudicate them. The points I listed in the parent comment are just a small fraction of the real world problems that would creep up in the first day of implementing this sort of system. From here on this is more opinion/political: If the discussion was about making laws more aligned with those points then the last place to start would be with crypto-tokens that have no real world impact (besides using a bunch of compute/resources). The place to start IMO would be to start removing exceptions from laws/taxes that don't make sense anymore, get the legal code down to a manageable size, introduce better accountability to our democracy and so many other steps. Starting with the tokens is destructive because it focuses energy at the wrong end of the problem and has clearly just led to most destructive parts of society (thieves, criminals, grifters, scammers, MLMs, etc.) to profit. It also makes people who see the obvious problems with it (I count myself among them) unwilling to participate so there is less force behind it even if it (against all odds) was a good idea. I think it's also clear that a proper system to solve these issues would not be based on the current technical platforms being built since those are incapable on a fundamental level to answer questions like the ones I asked.

postalrat 4y ago

How could it ever be decentralized if it requires laws to enforce?