4 ms·

I don't trust you, you don't trust me, neither of us trust the guy who owns the git server but I need to give you something without anyone being able to stop us

by nannal 4y ago

I don't trust you, you don't trust me, neither of us trust the guy who owns the git server but I need to give you something without anyone being able to stop us.

fuckstick 4y ago
> give you something Eh? You can’t like give me anything - you can give me a token - which can also effectively be money. The latter usually occurs due to some other trust relationship needing to be established - we are back at square one.
- nannal 4y ago
  Luckily there's a fairly liquid market for the things we're handing around (usually)
  - fuckstick 4y ago
    I acknowledged “something you can exchange for money” - that was not the objection. It doesn’t solve the underlying difficulty of exchanging physical goods and services that are not tokens - you, know, the actual hard part. It also doesn’t solve the laundering aspect once you try to get those tokens liquidated to something not volatile as fuck.
pama 4y ago
Signed git commits, as per the parent.
- nannal 4y ago
  Git guy took the server offline. You want to refer to the commit to give someone else the token but now you can't. You can't trust the git guy.
  - thwayunion 4y ago
    This isn't a coherent problem statement, and to the extent that it is, it's solved by TCP/IP (this isn't the early 1980s; why are you using some random third party's server if you explicitly don't trust them to keep the server running? Run it from your own box. This has been solved since the early 90s.)
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    It's funny how after over a decade the best bitcoin can do is an almost half solution to a problem more contrived than the plot of a daytime soap opera. Who the fuck actually has this problem?
krrrh 4y ago
You really shouldn't be doing a significant amount of your business with people who don't trust you and who you don't trust. Blockchain advocates really underestimate how much of functioning economies simply work because of trust (with lawyers and courts as a backup), and how small the potential "I don't trust you" market is.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  It is okay to do business with people you don't trust, but the crux is that pow/pos doesn't actually solve most of the substantive trust problems. Eg: all of the weird supply chain nonsense around blockchain. You can keep a ledger and so on, but if there's corruption/theft in the physical warehouse then the ledger is worth only and exactly the disk space to which it's written. No amount of distributed consensus will change anything about the fact that Joe's cousin's friend heard about the shipment and stole 10% of the bulk good and replaced it with dirt to make the weights match. The problem of doing business with people who you don't completely trust is very real. However, blockchain offers no solution (except and unless the thing you are trading is something that literally be placed on a blockchain, ie nothing physical and nothing that depends on a legal system to enforce).
- everfree 4y ago
  Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you actually trusted them, there would be no need for courts. The "I don't trust you" market consists of everyone who does business using written contracts. So, nearly everyone.
  - short_sells_poo 4y ago
    I'm sorry but this is a take I completely disagree with. Fundamentally, I do business with people I trust. If I don't trust someone, I'll simply never do business with them. No amount of bullet proof mathematical constructs will change this. Now, I may trust someone now, but circumstances change. People change. I don't trust the universe to be constant. I thus want to enshrine agreements in contracts and and I want there to be institutions that can offer objective (within reason) arbitration in case my counterparty and I come to disagree in the future. I don't know what sort of business you operate in, but in my industry, trust is paramount and is practically equivalent to capital. You'll simply not even be employed unless you are trusted. It takes a long time to build a track record and you can lose it in the matter of seconds if you make poor decisions. So yes, IMO the world operates fundamentally on the basis of trust. I don't believe for a moment that long term successful business can be conducted in an environment without fundamental trust between counterparties. Again, trust does not equal blindly taking people at their word or neglecting due diligence. "Trust, but verify" is the saying.
tsimionescu 4y ago
Simple: there's no way to do this transaction - at least not scalably. Are you implying that BTC can somehow solve this?

by nannal 4y ago

I don't trust you, you don't trust me, neither of us trust the guy who owns the git server but I need to give you something without anyone being able to stop us.

fuckstick 4y ago

> give you something Eh? You can’t like give me anything - you can give me a token - which can also effectively be money. The latter usually occurs due to some other trust relationship needing to be established - we are back at square one.

nannal 4y ago
Luckily there's a fairly liquid market for the things we're handing around (usually)
- fuckstick 4y ago
  I acknowledged “something you can exchange for money” - that was not the objection. It doesn’t solve the underlying difficulty of exchanging physical goods and services that are not tokens - you, know, the actual hard part. It also doesn’t solve the laundering aspect once you try to get those tokens liquidated to something not volatile as fuck.

pama 4y ago

Signed git commits, as per the parent.

nannal 4y ago
Git guy took the server offline. You want to refer to the commit to give someone else the token but now you can't. You can't trust the git guy.
- thwayunion 4y ago
  This isn't a coherent problem statement, and to the extent that it is, it's solved by TCP/IP (this isn't the early 1980s; why are you using some random third party's server if you explicitly don't trust them to keep the server running? Run it from your own box. This has been solved since the early 90s.)
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  It's funny how after over a decade the best bitcoin can do is an almost half solution to a problem more contrived than the plot of a daytime soap opera. Who the fuck actually has this problem?

krrrh 4y ago

You really shouldn't be doing a significant amount of your business with people who don't trust you and who you don't trust. Blockchain advocates really underestimate how much of functioning economies simply work because of trust (with lawyers and courts as a backup), and how small the potential "I don't trust you" market is.

thwayunion 4y ago
It is okay to do business with people you don't trust, but the crux is that pow/pos doesn't actually solve most of the substantive trust problems. Eg: all of the weird supply chain nonsense around blockchain. You can keep a ledger and so on, but if there's corruption/theft in the physical warehouse then the ledger is worth only and exactly the disk space to which it's written. No amount of distributed consensus will change anything about the fact that Joe's cousin's friend heard about the shipment and stole 10% of the bulk good and replaced it with dirt to make the weights match. The problem of doing business with people who you don't completely trust is very real. However, blockchain offers no solution (except and unless the thing you are trading is something that literally be placed on a blockchain, ie nothing physical and nothing that depends on a legal system to enforce).
everfree 4y ago
Courts and lawyers are the opposite of trusting who you're doing business with. If you actually trusted them, there would be no need for courts. The "I don't trust you" market consists of everyone who does business using written contracts. So, nearly everyone.
- short_sells_poo 4y ago
  I'm sorry but this is a take I completely disagree with. Fundamentally, I do business with people I trust. If I don't trust someone, I'll simply never do business with them. No amount of bullet proof mathematical constructs will change this. Now, I may trust someone now, but circumstances change. People change. I don't trust the universe to be constant. I thus want to enshrine agreements in contracts and and I want there to be institutions that can offer objective (within reason) arbitration in case my counterparty and I come to disagree in the future. I don't know what sort of business you operate in, but in my industry, trust is paramount and is practically equivalent to capital. You'll simply not even be employed unless you are trusted. It takes a long time to build a track record and you can lose it in the matter of seconds if you make poor decisions. So yes, IMO the world operates fundamentally on the basis of trust. I don't believe for a moment that long term successful business can be conducted in an environment without fundamental trust between counterparties. Again, trust does not equal blindly taking people at their word or neglecting due diligence. "Trust, but verify" is the saying.

tsimionescu 4y ago

Simple: there's no way to do this transaction - at least not scalably. Are you implying that BTC can somehow solve this?