4 ms·

Digital art where artists get paid and royalties are enforced, instant global money transfer, software standards for fractionalised investments in stocks real e

by nailer 3y ago

Digital art where artists get paid and royalties are enforced, instant global money transfer, software standards for fractionalised investments in stocks real estate physical collectibles and other asset classes, retail without 3% going to visa, digital gold, a world where everybody has a friendly name for their public key and we can communicate privately, probably others.

XorNot 3y ago
Blockchain can solve no problem (by technical means) which depends on the status of physical assets. Which ironically also includes digital assets, on account of the analog-hole existing (you have to shoot light into eyeballs at some point).
- nailer 3y ago
  The contract pays a physical asset custodian for storage, property taxes or whatever other costs. So blockchain specifically provides a financial incentive for a custodian. Eyeballs thing is true, but hasn’t stopped cryptography being effective in other areas for example, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Apple TV etc seem to be doing well despite the electrons reaching my eyeballs unencrypted. The same applies to collectible images, videos and code.
  - XorNot 3y ago
    > The contract pays a physical asset custodian for storage, property taxes or whatever other costs. So blockchain specifically provides a financial incentive for a custodian. How does a smart contract ensure the custodian is doing any of the things it assumes they are? What is the actual mechanism meant to be, that resists someone inputting "yes I definitely have this car here" when they do not?
    - nailer 3y ago
      This is correct, blockchain does not stop Fraud. I don’t think anyone is asserting that it does.
      - XorNot 3y ago
        So then what value is the smart contract bringing to the situation?
        nailer 3y ago
        There are many situations mentioned, but the same value proof of digital ownership brings elsewhere. Happy to answer for a more specific case if you want to provide one.
        XorNot 3y ago
        You haven't mentioned any situations. You haven't described what a smart contract is doing more usefully then a regular legal contract, of the type you would need to have to prevent fraud against your smart contract for the status of goods.
        nailer 3y ago
        Yes I have. There are six mentioned here. I’m happy to go into detail on one of them if you like. Just tell me which. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970568 Current generation L1s don’t use the term smart contract anymore because they have almost no resemblance to actual contracts. Rather they are on chain financial programs. I definitely make no attempt to compare on chain programs to legal contracts. I have repeatedly stated that software cannot prevent fraud.
        XorNot 3y ago
        You have repeatedly failed to explain what a smart contract is going to be doing that is providing any value in any of those situations, since as you say, "software cannot prevent fraud". Since trust in legal power prevents fraud, which is what a conventional contract represents, why would I need a smart contract at all to deal with any of those circumstances? Specifically, what value is Blockchain providing that is not provided by a simple database run by the trusted party who would be necessary to execute any part of the actual physical interactions where all the value is provided?
giantrobot 3y ago
Digital art where royalties are "enforced" requires a dystopian DRM hellscape. Digital "gold" is a meaningless term. Retail without 3% going to Visa...instead some variable percent will go to transaction fees.
- nailer 3y ago
  You are already in a dystopian DRM landscape and have been for 20 years since general purpose computing died and all computer hardware from your BIOS to your monitor cable already enforces DRM. The FSF was right. That’s off topic though. Distributing royalties to artists is just something called programmable NFTs. It’s just cryptography - a program enforces the artist’s account is credited to allow a transfer and it’s not a big deal. artists are absolutely making money from this. It fixes an issue in traditional art where the resale value of an artists earlier works increases however, the artist doesn’t see any of those returns. Transaction fees on modern layer 1 crypto platforms are 0.0025 cents. The meaning of the term Digital gold is an asset that is not subject to quantitative easing from the government. I.e. one cannot mine vast quantities of Gold or produce vast quantities of new bitcoins very easily. Pardon the edits, I am using voice dictation, as I’m having trouble using my hands.
  - danaris 3y ago
    > You are already in a dystopian DRM landscape... This is a non sequitur. "Some software uses draconian DRM" is neither the same as, nor a refutation of, "enforcing ownership of digital goods like art requires draconian DRM."
    - nailer 3y ago
      Sorry landscape should have read Hellscape as you wrote but I was using voice dictation, as my fingers aren’t working. I am not asserting that some software uses DRM as if DRM is the exception. I am saying that we are in the hellscape You described when nearly everything that wants to uses DRM.
prepend 3y ago
You don’t need a blockchain to do those things. Retail with digital cash is the closest, but as a consumer there’s no real benefit to me over visa and the “real” coins like eth and bitcoin are very expensive for purchases. I think a central bank digital currency with transaction fees in the millionth of a cent (the real compute cost) would be so much better for retail.
- nailer 3y ago
  You are correct that there is no benefit to consumers in saving retailers money. Additionally, Visa can terminate a Retailers account if they provide a discount for using an alternative payment system. This may not be in all markets in the market it exist in, it also may not be legal. You are 100% correct regarding Ethereum gas fees. Transaction fees on current generation L1s are 0.0025 cents.
lxgr 3y ago
> Digital art where artists get paid and royalties are enforced This seems like a goal best solved by a good/fair/efficient legal system, not a technical problem. Recording ownership is easy; determining where intellectual property ends and fair use begins is where the complexity is at. I haven't seen NFTs etc. meaningfully address any of that. > retail without 3% going to visa Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks. > a world where everybody has a friendly name for their public key and we can communicate privately What's the connection to cryptocurrency here? We've had that way before Bitcoin.
- nailer 3y ago
  > determining where intellectual property ends and fair use begins is where the complexity is at recording ownership of digital goods at scale has historically been very difficult. fair use is important but does not help artists get paid. Please don’t read that is being anti fair use. It is rather that fair use is orthogonal to this problem. > Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks. Glad we agree on at least one of these. Visa is 2.9 percent plus some other minor fee I can’t remember right now. > What's the connection to cryptocurrency here? Usability. I guarantee you more people have crypto wallets now that have ever installed PGP, GPG, or any other similar app in the entire history of computing.
  - lxgr 3y ago
    > Visa is 2.9 percent plus some other minor fee I can’t remember right now. No, that's the total that the merchant pays. The biggest chunk of that goes to the issuing bank and pays for credit card rewards which you get back as the cardholder in some form. Credit cards (at least in the US) are a fairly efficient payment system, but as long as there will be card rewards, they effectively create a cash surcharge at all merchants that accept them: If you pay by card, the biggest chunk of these ~3% is kicked back to you, so the merchant usually just bakes that 3% into their prices, but you get the biggest part of it back. But since merchants usually don't have two sets of prices (although there are exceptions), cash payers end up net-paying more, i.e. indirectly pay for your card rewards. This isn't the case in all countries globally; for example, in the EU, card interchange is capped to about 10% of what merchants pay in the US. As a result, merchant fees are much lower, but there are practically no more rewards.

by nailer 3y ago

XorNot 3y ago

Blockchain can solve no problem (by technical means) which depends on the status of physical assets. Which ironically also includes digital assets, on account of the analog-hole existing (you have to shoot light into eyeballs at some point).

nailer 3y ago
The contract pays a physical asset custodian for storage, property taxes or whatever other costs. So blockchain specifically provides a financial incentive for a custodian. Eyeballs thing is true, but hasn’t stopped cryptography being effective in other areas for example, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Apple TV etc seem to be doing well despite the electrons reaching my eyeballs unencrypted. The same applies to collectible images, videos and code.
- XorNot 3y ago
  > The contract pays a physical asset custodian for storage, property taxes or whatever other costs. So blockchain specifically provides a financial incentive for a custodian. How does a smart contract ensure the custodian is doing any of the things it assumes they are? What is the actual mechanism meant to be, that resists someone inputting "yes I definitely have this car here" when they do not?
  - nailer 3y ago
    This is correct, blockchain does not stop Fraud. I don’t think anyone is asserting that it does.
    - XorNot 3y ago
      So then what value is the smart contract bringing to the situation?
      - nailer 3y ago
        There are many situations mentioned, but the same value proof of digital ownership brings elsewhere. Happy to answer for a more specific case if you want to provide one.
        XorNot 3y ago
        You haven't mentioned any situations. You haven't described what a smart contract is doing more usefully then a regular legal contract, of the type you would need to have to prevent fraud against your smart contract for the status of goods.
        nailer 3y ago
        Yes I have. There are six mentioned here. I’m happy to go into detail on one of them if you like. Just tell me which. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970568 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970568 Current generation L1s don’t use the term smart contract anymore because they have almost no resemblance to actual contracts. Rather they are on chain financial programs. I definitely make no attempt to compare on chain programs to legal contracts. I have repeatedly stated that software cannot prevent fraud.
        XorNot 3y ago
        You have repeatedly failed to explain what a smart contract is going to be doing that is providing any value in any of those situations, since as you say, "software cannot prevent fraud". Since trust in legal power prevents fraud, which is what a conventional contract represents, why would I need a smart contract at all to deal with any of those circumstances? Specifically, what value is Blockchain providing that is not provided by a simple database run by the trusted party who would be necessary to execute any part of the actual physical interactions where all the value is provided?

giantrobot 3y ago

Digital art where royalties are "enforced" requires a dystopian DRM hellscape. Digital "gold" is a meaningless term. Retail without 3% going to Visa...instead some variable percent will go to transaction fees.

nailer 3y ago
You are already in a dystopian DRM landscape and have been for 20 years since general purpose computing died and all computer hardware from your BIOS to your monitor cable already enforces DRM. The FSF was right. That’s off topic though. Distributing royalties to artists is just something called programmable NFTs. It’s just cryptography - a program enforces the artist’s account is credited to allow a transfer and it’s not a big deal. artists are absolutely making money from this. It fixes an issue in traditional art where the resale value of an artists earlier works increases however, the artist doesn’t see any of those returns. Transaction fees on modern layer 1 crypto platforms are 0.0025 cents. The meaning of the term Digital gold is an asset that is not subject to quantitative easing from the government. I.e. one cannot mine vast quantities of Gold or produce vast quantities of new bitcoins very easily. Pardon the edits, I am using voice dictation, as I’m having trouble using my hands.
- danaris 3y ago
  > You are already in a dystopian DRM landscape... This is a non sequitur. "Some software uses draconian DRM" is neither the same as, nor a refutation of, "enforcing ownership of digital goods like art requires draconian DRM."
  - nailer 3y ago
    Sorry landscape should have read Hellscape as you wrote but I was using voice dictation, as my fingers aren’t working. I am not asserting that some software uses DRM as if DRM is the exception. I am saying that we are in the hellscape You described when nearly everything that wants to uses DRM.

prepend 3y ago

You don’t need a blockchain to do those things. Retail with digital cash is the closest, but as a consumer there’s no real benefit to me over visa and the “real” coins like eth and bitcoin are very expensive for purchases. I think a central bank digital currency with transaction fees in the millionth of a cent (the real compute cost) would be so much better for retail.

nailer 3y ago
You are correct that there is no benefit to consumers in saving retailers money. Additionally, Visa can terminate a Retailers account if they provide a discount for using an alternative payment system. This may not be in all markets in the market it exist in, it also may not be legal. You are 100% correct regarding Ethereum gas fees. Transaction fees on current generation L1s are 0.0025 cents.

lxgr 3y ago

> Digital art where artists get paid and royalties are enforced This seems like a goal best solved by a good/fair/efficient legal system, not a technical problem. Recording ownership is easy; determining where intellectual property ends and fair use begins is where the complexity is at. I haven't seen NFTs etc. meaningfully address any of that. > retail without 3% going to visa Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks. > a world where everybody has a friendly name for their public key and we can communicate privately What's the connection to cryptocurrency here? We've had that way before Bitcoin.

nailer 3y ago
> determining where intellectual property ends and fair use begins is where the complexity is at recording ownership of digital goods at scale has historically been very difficult. fair use is important but does not help artists get paid. Please don’t read that is being anti fair use. It is rather that fair use is orthogonal to this problem. > Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks. Glad we agree on at least one of these. Visa is 2.9 percent plus some other minor fee I can’t remember right now. > What's the connection to cryptocurrency here? Usability. I guarantee you more people have crypto wallets now that have ever installed PGP, GPG, or any other similar app in the entire history of computing.
- lxgr 3y ago
  > Visa is 2.9 percent plus some other minor fee I can’t remember right now. No, that's the total that the merchant pays. The biggest chunk of that goes to the issuing bank and pays for credit card rewards which you get back as the cardholder in some form. Credit cards (at least in the US) are a fairly efficient payment system, but as long as there will be card rewards, they effectively create a cash surcharge at all merchants that accept them: If you pay by card, the biggest chunk of these ~3% is kicked back to you, so the merchant usually just bakes that 3% into their prices, but you get the biggest part of it back. But since merchants usually don't have two sets of prices (although there are exceptions), cash payers end up net-paying more, i.e. indirectly pay for your card rewards. This isn't the case in all countries globally; for example, in the EU, card interchange is capped to about 10% of what merchants pay in the US. As a result, merchant fees are much lower, but there are practically no more rewards.