3 ms·
The weirdest parts about that one are really: 1) You're placing the lock under the complete unsupervised control of someone you're supposed to be securing agai
by amalcon 14y ago
The weirdest parts about that one are really:
1) You're placing the lock under the complete unsupervised control of someone you're supposed to be securing against. A car buyer, for example, could replace their entire ignition system with aftermarket parts: no amount of security will prevent that.
2) It doesn't actually need Bitcoin. The same concept can be implemented with regular old key signing.
- enmaku 14y agoIt's not really looking like that's an option too many folks care about anyway, given the survey results so far. As for the concerns: 1) The original audio did mention that there would be difficulties on the hardware side of that fence - leasing a car may have been a poor example, but it was just an idea of one kind of transaction a "smart property" system would be capable of. 2) There is actually one big benefit of adding Bitcoin to that mix: You gain the benefits of a publicly published block chain that's not reliant on any centralized source as is the case with traditional key signing. A bank could implement this for their loans right now, but it would be reliant on some centralized source to enforce the payment schema. With the bank as that source it would be a very lop-sided relationship with one central point of failure. With the Bitcoin protocol as the source of contract enforcement the balance of power between you and the bank is even and your single point of failure is now a distributed transaction network with tens of thousands of nodes.
- jfoutz 14y agowrt 1, The car control system and the smart property stuff would all be on a single chip. So, of course, replace enough parts and the car would be unlocked. But those parts might be expensive or complicated enough to replace be an effective lock.