3 ms·

> I understand the arguments against blockchains > and the reality is showing an universe of memecoins, hacks, scams, etc > I think returning to the base concep

> I understand the arguments against blockchains > and the reality is showing an universe of memecoins, hacks, scams, etc > I think returning to the base concept of smart contracts is useful. Sorry, but those are contradictory, unless by useful you mean something bad-faith. The only good-faith argument that matters are oracles. If you allow for external oracles , there's negative value in blockchain/dlt tech anyway, therefore the only reasonable definition of blockhains includes resistance to external oracles. In this world, the only type of object that can exist at all are blockchain-borne digital tokens - some form of memecoin and the lack of external oracles by definition rewards scams and hacks. Yes, you can talk about smart contracts, but those smart contracts will eventually deal with scams, hacks and memecoins. However, crucially, whatever wisdom you might have regarding smart contracts, it is 100% limited to blockchains and therefore has zero applicability outside scams, hacks and memecoins of blockchain.

nailer 2y ago
> If you allow for external oracles , there's negative value in blockchain/dlt tech anyway, therefore the only reasonable definition of blockhains includes resistance to external oracles. You’re not explaining this well. If your concern is oracle manipulation common onchain apps don’t rely on single oracles.
- friendzis 2y ago
  Use case: two parties want to transact with cryptocoins on one end and two pizzas on another Problem: you need an external oracle to verify "real world" part of the transaction and blockchain part simultaneously. Implications: The security and associated cost of DLT/blockchain is useless as the trust of transaction is offloaded from the distributed consensus to real world entity, which could simply update an entry in a postgres database without sacrificing any security at all, but with lower alternative cost, hence negative value add. I don't think it's possible to design a general scheme, backed by a smart contract, with economic incentives for all three parties to play nice. In the real world, the inherent mutability of transactions enables economic (dis-)incentives for functional oracles. > If your concern is oracle manipulation common onchain apps don’t rely on single oracles. What you are hinting at are bet/prediction-like applications, which eventually deal with the same on-chain objects - memecoins described, circumventing the oracle problem.
  - nailer 2y ago
    A database would be controlled by a single entity. It could be turned off, have it’s source code vary from what is advertised, or otherwise be manipulated. That’s obviously an incredible risk to security. I’m not hinting at bet/prediction like applications, there are many uses for oracles aside from this. Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins.
    - friendzis 2y ago
      > A database would be controlled by a single entity. There is literally no downside to that once you put all the trust on a single entity anyway. > Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins. So what's the underlying asset that is the object of transaction if not memecoins?
- wslh 2y ago
  If you came up with a near 0 probability of collusion between oracles and use a set of them you can prevent double spend.

nailer 2y ago

> If you allow for external oracles , there's negative value in blockchain/dlt tech anyway, therefore the only reasonable definition of blockhains includes resistance to external oracles. You’re not explaining this well. If your concern is oracle manipulation common onchain apps don’t rely on single oracles.

friendzis 2y ago
Use case: two parties want to transact with cryptocoins on one end and two pizzas on another Problem: you need an external oracle to verify "real world" part of the transaction and blockchain part simultaneously. Implications: The security and associated cost of DLT/blockchain is useless as the trust of transaction is offloaded from the distributed consensus to real world entity, which could simply update an entry in a postgres database without sacrificing any security at all, but with lower alternative cost, hence negative value add. I don't think it's possible to design a general scheme, backed by a smart contract, with economic incentives for all three parties to play nice. In the real world, the inherent mutability of transactions enables economic (dis-)incentives for functional oracles. > If your concern is oracle manipulation common onchain apps don’t rely on single oracles. What you are hinting at are bet/prediction-like applications, which eventually deal with the same on-chain objects - memecoins described, circumventing the oracle problem.
- nailer 2y ago
  A database would be controlled by a single entity. It could be turned off, have it’s source code vary from what is advertised, or otherwise be manipulated. That’s obviously an incredible risk to security. I’m not hinting at bet/prediction like applications, there are many uses for oracles aside from this. Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins.
  - friendzis 2y ago
    > A database would be controlled by a single entity. There is literally no downside to that once you put all the trust on a single entity anyway. > Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins. So what's the underlying asset that is the object of transaction if not memecoins?
wslh 2y ago
If you came up with a near 0 probability of collusion between oracles and use a set of them you can prevent double spend.