4 ms·

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on

"Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. For your crypto-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the blockchain with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party run a good old database.

bloppe 4y ago
"physical, trusted party" is a way of describing a blockchain network.
- karpierz 4y ago
  No, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419
conorcleary 4y ago
...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.
- zach_garwood 4y ago
  "Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.
- jazzyjackson 4y ago
  a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"
- majormajor 4y ago
  It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.
- peoplefromibiza 4y ago
  a good old distributed network of centralized databases, one or more for each entity, that get reconciled at intervals. the network itself is already decentralized. interoperability and open protocols > immutable ledger (which is a centralized source of the truth) philosophically speaking a society where information is stored with no restriction but can be made available to other parties in an open and documented manner is more free than one where the "tables of the law" is one immutable and indisputable blockchain because the computer says so.
ibz 4y ago
Very much agree. The only cryptocurrency that does not require a trusted third party is Bitcoin - and that is because it uses energy as a link to the real world. All the PoS crap is just various trusted third parties, which the fiat system already has (governments, banks...) and works better and is well regulated and well understood. Zero added value.
- arlcode 4y ago
  I don't think this is what the GP is talking about. Think of this scenario: Suppose I got an online token/contract/NFT on any Blockchain that says I own the property and house at 123 Main Street and further suppose this is as verified on the chain as it can be. No doubt about it. Then when I show up to 123 Main Street there is already someone living there with a different claim (let's say a classic deed in some government real estate database). Then the police and the courts get involved and at the end of it one party will be removed from the property, by force if necessary. This is what the GP meant with trusted physical party. The entities who IRL decide and enforce which of the many competing "proofs" of ownership are actually legit.
  - ibz 4y ago
    I understand exactly what the comment was about: there is absolutely no way to enforce something "on the blockchain" in real life. Hence, the only thing a blockchain can be used for is an abstract token that does not have an equivalent in the real life, and thus can be used to represent anything - not just a house or an artwork or a chicken - but all of these at the same time and yet it is backed by actual energy. And this is Bitcoin. Every other use of a blockchain is a scam.
jerrre 4y ago
What do you mean when you talk about "the real world", is there one such thing?
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  By real-world I mean off-chain assets where the source of truth is usually the state of the physical world (as opposed to the blockchain, like it is with cryptocoins).
  - betwixthewires 4y ago
    I have some thoughts on this. Fundamentally, the "state of the real world" is the result of might is right, force or threat of force. The state of the real world is the result of action, and action is an act of force on the matter of the world, the act of changing things away from their most stable state by way of expression of energy. This is an act of force in it's simplest sense on non living things. Where living things are concerned, it becomes recognizable as force because living things have their own agenda, and putting them into a state you prefer necessitates some degree of coercion. So a hypothetical world where entities like these network States, blockchain states and consensus mechanisms control real world assets is a world where action on the real world, including use of force, is automated. You don't have to have permission from the current status quo structure of institutions for blockchains and the like to have real world effect, you just have to have a way for them to act with or without institutional approval. A world where construction, modification and aggressive action is automated and thus can be deterministically and provably democratic is what you get out of all this.
ls15 4y ago
"Paper" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your paper stack says. For your paper-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party rely on a good old stone tablet.
- Nextgrid 4y ago
  When writing this comment I originally wanted to make an analogy to law and the reason the law is (usually) followed isn’t because “law” is a magic word that gives the text magical powers but because if you don’t follow it, some goons with guns will eventually show up and convince you to follow it. In this case, the goons are that “trusted party” that’s meant to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world. We know it’s not perfect which is why we have various levels of redundancy and oversight, and while it’s still not 100% reliable it usually works quite well. However I’m not sure what you mean to signify with your paper vs stone tablet comparison. Unlike blockchains, paper doesn’t claim to do anything magical compared to stone tablets - it’s still just a medium of storing written text.
- randomopining 4y ago
  Paper and stone tablets are the same thing lol. The whole point is a modern functioning society is a chain of humans that are held by social, economic, and legal forces to perform duties. A blockchain exists online, it's not "real". The blockchain can't perform actions in the physical world. Humans have to. The blockchain can't inspect a house before sale. The blockchain can't test the water quality outside of a factory upstream from your town.
- pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
  > "Paper" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your paper stack says. For your paper-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world... This but unironically.
gumby 4y ago
> "Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. "My program would be so great if I didn't have to do I/O" I made essentially this comment yesterday on the corncob article, but now realize it's the essence of crypto/dao fandom.

bloppe 4y ago

"physical, trusted party" is a way of describing a blockchain network.

karpierz 4y ago
No, see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32109419

conorcleary 4y ago

...a good old... centralized database? Welcome to the future, where pushing back with your opinion just helps reinforce the need for decentralization.

zach_garwood 4y ago
"Decentralization." You keep using this word, but I do not think it means what you think means.
jazzyjackson 4y ago
a blockchain is as centralized as it gets, a "single source of truth"
majormajor 4y ago
It's the difference between storage of data and consensus. You could have a centralized DB that believes X is true. You could have a distributed DB that believes X is true - or even that reflects that a bunch of people involved in the network believes that X is true. But what if X isn't true according to the consensus of the local societies you live in? Then it simply doesn't matter what sort of DB you use. In this "network states" discussion there seems to be a simple problem here: a network that crosses political boundaries can't solve certain things. So ok, it "crowdfunds territory around the world and eventually gains diplomatic recognition from pre-existing states" But... is that actually even realistic at all, or is it all fantasy? And even if you get there, your problem of border defense is INCREDIBLY difficult in your geo-distributed state. Traditional states appear to have some massive advantages in cases of any conflict.
peoplefromibiza 4y ago
a good old distributed network of centralized databases, one or more for each entity, that get reconciled at intervals. the network itself is already decentralized. interoperability and open protocols > immutable ledger (which is a centralized source of the truth) philosophically speaking a society where information is stored with no restriction but can be made available to other parties in an open and documented manner is more free than one where the "tables of the law" is one immutable and indisputable blockchain because the computer says so.

ibz 4y ago

Very much agree. The only cryptocurrency that does not require a trusted third party is Bitcoin - and that is because it uses energy as a link to the real world. All the PoS crap is just various trusted third parties, which the fiat system already has (governments, banks...) and works better and is well regulated and well understood. Zero added value.

arlcode 4y ago
I don't think this is what the GP is talking about. Think of this scenario: Suppose I got an online token/contract/NFT on any Blockchain that says I own the property and house at 123 Main Street and further suppose this is as verified on the chain as it can be. No doubt about it. Then when I show up to 123 Main Street there is already someone living there with a different claim (let's say a classic deed in some government real estate database). Then the police and the courts get involved and at the end of it one party will be removed from the property, by force if necessary. This is what the GP meant with trusted physical party. The entities who IRL decide and enforce which of the many competing "proofs" of ownership are actually legit.
- ibz 4y ago
  I understand exactly what the comment was about: there is absolutely no way to enforce something "on the blockchain" in real life. Hence, the only thing a blockchain can be used for is an abstract token that does not have an equivalent in the real life, and thus can be used to represent anything - not just a house or an artwork or a chicken - but all of these at the same time and yet it is backed by actual energy. And this is Bitcoin. Every other use of a blockchain is a scam.

jerrre 4y ago

What do you mean when you talk about "the real world", is there one such thing?

Nextgrid 4y ago
By real-world I mean off-chain assets where the source of truth is usually the state of the physical world (as opposed to the blockchain, like it is with cryptocoins).
- betwixthewires 4y ago
  I have some thoughts on this. Fundamentally, the "state of the real world" is the result of might is right, force or threat of force. The state of the real world is the result of action, and action is an act of force on the matter of the world, the act of changing things away from their most stable state by way of expression of energy. This is an act of force in it's simplest sense on non living things. Where living things are concerned, it becomes recognizable as force because living things have their own agenda, and putting them into a state you prefer necessitates some degree of coercion. So a hypothetical world where entities like these network States, blockchain states and consensus mechanisms control real world assets is a world where action on the real world, including use of force, is automated. You don't have to have permission from the current status quo structure of institutions for blockchains and the like to have real world effect, you just have to have a way for them to act with or without institutional approval. A world where construction, modification and aggressive action is automated and thus can be deterministically and provably democratic is what you get out of all this.

ls15 4y ago

"Paper" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your paper stack says. For your paper-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world... at which point you may just let the trusted party rely on a good old stone tablet.

Nextgrid 4y ago
When writing this comment I originally wanted to make an analogy to law and the reason the law is (usually) followed isn’t because “law” is a magic word that gives the text magical powers but because if you don’t follow it, some goons with guns will eventually show up and convince you to follow it. In this case, the goons are that “trusted party” that’s meant to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world. We know it’s not perfect which is why we have various levels of redundancy and oversight, and while it’s still not 100% reliable it usually works quite well. However I’m not sure what you mean to signify with your paper vs stone tablet comparison. Unlike blockchains, paper doesn’t claim to do anything magical compared to stone tablets - it’s still just a medium of storing written text.
randomopining 4y ago
Paper and stone tablets are the same thing lol. The whole point is a modern functioning society is a chain of humans that are held by social, economic, and legal forces to perform duties. A blockchain exists online, it's not "real". The blockchain can't perform actions in the physical world. Humans have to. The blockchain can't inspect a house before sale. The blockchain can't test the water quality outside of a factory upstream from your town.
pwdisswordfish9 4y ago
> "Paper" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your paper stack says. For your paper-based project to have any effect on the real world, you need some physical, trusted party to reconcile the state of the paper with the state of the real world... This but unironically.

gumby 4y ago

> "Crypto" people need to understand one thing: the real world does not give a shit what your blockchain says. "My program would be so great if I didn't have to do I/O" I made essentially this comment yesterday on the corncob article, but now realize it's the essence of crypto/dao fandom.