4 ms·

A centralized database of fungible and useful assets is going to eventually be hacked. Just ask OKTA about that. Whereas there is no central point of hack for

A centralized database of fungible and useful assets is going to eventually be hacked. Just ask OKTA about that. Whereas there is no central point of hack for a well designed and tested blockchain. Distributed custody in an adversarial environment with mutual trust and dis-trust. Yes it's not everything, but tradfi solutions are not 150% bulletproof either - they may only seem that way to the outside, but there are massive hazards lying just under the surface waiting to blow up. See: GME settlement risk end of Jan 2020. EDIT: I used to be a huge skeptic of Eth and smart contracts. But I knew basically nothing about how they actually worked in practice. I learned a lot more and now I am a big believer. The reality is you just likely do not know enough. Your skepticism of the space prevents you from learning and seeing the value that's sitting right in front of your eyes. You also have baked in presumptions that existing systems are somehow... workable or great, when they are not.

threeseed 4y ago
* Centralised database is eventually going to be hacked. * Decentralised blockchain can't be hacked because it's well designed and tested. Problem is neither of these statements are always true.
- ryanobjc 4y ago
  Yet if they are true often enough, then the use case makes sense. Also don't forget insider problems. Every major financial institution has massive insider threat problemss.
  - threeseed 4y ago
    I work at a major financial institution and there is no insider threat problem. There are systems in place built over decades and regulated by the government that audit and monitor the behaviour of all employees. In particular those who have a higher ability to conduct fraudulent activities. If you really want to see an insider threat issue you should look at the pump/dump schemes in the NFT world. That sort of immorality (and hopefully soon to be illegality) is truly shocking.
alkonaut 4y ago
Does anyone want or need “bulletproof” anything? The one feature of any transaction or contractual framework that I’d be most reluctant to give up is the one where they are fungible and reversible e.g in courts. Features luge secrecy, resistance to hacking, corruption, and so on seem to be second to this in nearly every case in the regular/legal economy of open democracy (I.e the part of the economy that matters).
- ryanobjc 4y ago
  Solutions exist to this that can respect the distributed nature and not rely upon a single authority. Multisig wallets that require N of M where the participants are chosen from a broad swath of the relevant community is popular. That way you can go in and change transactions after the fact, all without requiring the blockchain to (a) know about it and (b) everyone gets to choose their own relevant security model. It even exists now, if you mis-send USDC/USDT you can petition Circle or Tether to reverse or change a balance. Commonly required when sending USD* to an address that can't move it out or handle it. But ALSO a lot of payment systems that people like are in fact not reversible, even by courts. And people like them that way - it prevents fraud. Fedwires, Swift wires. Consider selling a high value item: there are few ways of electronically transferring amounts that can't be frauded out later. This is why many used car sales are done via cash - can't undo cash!
  - alkonaut 4y ago
    > This is why many used car sales are done via cash - can't undo cash! If there is some shenanigans going on then the buyer/seller can just take it to a court. Cash or not isn’t really relevant to the legality of a transaction it’s just a means of payment. It’s just like the deed to a house, it’s not really relevant to the purchase of a house. It’s that the buyer and seller respects the legal framework surrounding the transfer. A blockchain storing house ownerships doesn’t add much?
- forum_ghost 4y ago
  do you want your laptop bulletproof from hacking by members of this forum? what about your bank account?

threeseed 4y ago

* Centralised database is eventually going to be hacked. * Decentralised blockchain can't be hacked because it's well designed and tested. Problem is neither of these statements are always true.

ryanobjc 4y ago
Yet if they are true often enough, then the use case makes sense. Also don't forget insider problems. Every major financial institution has massive insider threat problemss.
- threeseed 4y ago
  I work at a major financial institution and there is no insider threat problem. There are systems in place built over decades and regulated by the government that audit and monitor the behaviour of all employees. In particular those who have a higher ability to conduct fraudulent activities. If you really want to see an insider threat issue you should look at the pump/dump schemes in the NFT world. That sort of immorality (and hopefully soon to be illegality) is truly shocking.

alkonaut 4y ago

Does anyone want or need “bulletproof” anything? The one feature of any transaction or contractual framework that I’d be most reluctant to give up is the one where they are fungible and reversible e.g in courts. Features luge secrecy, resistance to hacking, corruption, and so on seem to be second to this in nearly every case in the regular/legal economy of open democracy (I.e the part of the economy that matters).

ryanobjc 4y ago
Solutions exist to this that can respect the distributed nature and not rely upon a single authority. Multisig wallets that require N of M where the participants are chosen from a broad swath of the relevant community is popular. That way you can go in and change transactions after the fact, all without requiring the blockchain to (a) know about it and (b) everyone gets to choose their own relevant security model. It even exists now, if you mis-send USDC/USDT you can petition Circle or Tether to reverse or change a balance. Commonly required when sending USD* to an address that can't move it out or handle it. But ALSO a lot of payment systems that people like are in fact not reversible, even by courts. And people like them that way - it prevents fraud. Fedwires, Swift wires. Consider selling a high value item: there are few ways of electronically transferring amounts that can't be frauded out later. This is why many used car sales are done via cash - can't undo cash!
- alkonaut 4y ago
  > This is why many used car sales are done via cash - can't undo cash! If there is some shenanigans going on then the buyer/seller can just take it to a court. Cash or not isn’t really relevant to the legality of a transaction it’s just a means of payment. It’s just like the deed to a house, it’s not really relevant to the purchase of a house. It’s that the buyer and seller respects the legal framework surrounding the transfer. A blockchain storing house ownerships doesn’t add much?
forum_ghost 4y ago
do you want your laptop bulletproof from hacking by members of this forum? what about your bank account?