Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

squeevey t1_iyde58x wrote

Reply to comment by letsgetrandy in IBM and Maersk to shut down TradeLens supply chain platform - Project with shipping giant was once floated as ideal blockchain use case – but industry didn't buy in by Loki-L

An decentralized ledger can matter, especially for systems that are inherently distrustful.

The issue is that people are quick to trust. The problem is that TRUST is what got us a lot of issues in 2008. We trusted banks were doing their due diligence. So then blockchain comes along to be decentralized ledger of transactions to be verified independently.

The blockchain is sound, even Etheruem smart contracts have value. The GIANT GLARING PROBLEM - people did not VERIFY the different contracts to make sure the were doing the CORRECT thing. It needs code review.

Fundamentally, sure there's no need for blockchain if you're keen on trusting systems – and for private companies like IBM, yeah I trust em enough so there's no need for this to be on chain.

Here is a FANTASTIC article about the state of crypto in general and how it relates to the current finance system. Warning it is 40K words. But man is it good.

https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2022-the-crypto-story/

−13

homezlice t1_iydjf1j wrote

But if you can't trust the government you are screwed anyhow. And by trust I mean that they will uphold your transactions and show up if someone steals from you. The idea that you don't need government to do these things is fantasy. And they are only going to do these things for currency they have a cut of and print.

Trust in economic systems is enforced by threat of force if trust is violated by bad actors.

19

phdoofus t1_iye3k0p wrote

Even the most ardent libertarians recognize the need for the courts and strong financial laws and systems and the means of contract enforcement.

4

DHFranklin t1_iyebrfa wrote

I don't think you've met the most ardent. Plenty I have spoken with don't beleive in third party arbitration, full stop.

6

phdoofus t1_iyeekpa wrote

There's a fair chance that you're right that I haven't.

1

psychopythonmetrist t1_iyed10r wrote

I love when libertarians talk about having a bunch of corporate controlled courts. Like those courts would ever rule in favor of a regular person lmao.

5

squeevey t1_iydllo5 wrote

Is that force a slap on the wrist? Because that's what it seems like these days.

−2

homezlice t1_iydnxe2 wrote

No I mean force as in someone steals from you a cop will take the case and the judicial system will prosecute.

4

squeevey t1_iyedymt wrote

  1. Have you ever heard of civil forfeiture? Look it up. The government can and does take money from citizens. I understand your trying to say we do have to trust the government, but the point is decentralized systems to avoid having to trust.

  2. A blockchain is a decentralized verified ledger. That's it. Policy creation, execution, and enforcement are different.

  3. There are so many ways you cannot trust the government. If someone steals from you, and you call the police? They often say good luck, here's the police report you can file with your insurance.

  4. If you DISTRUST the smart contracts on a blockchain, then you would seek verification of them before you run the "contract". Caveat Emptor.

−1

homezlice t1_iyege3o wrote

So...can you explain why the government would ever allow a decentralized currency? What problem does this solve for the government? And why would having money that is decentralized change the equation of ultimately having to have the government as part of the deciding factor in whether something is going to be allowed or not? Last I checked governments had ALL the power in the world, and the chance of them giving up that power (much of which is derived from controlling currency), is 0.

The government in the US via the FDIC does protect customers from corrupt banks (to a certain extent, but most people don't have millions in savings anyhow) - and overall, the government does act on our behalf in keeping bad actors like FTX from pretending to be banks etc with the currency they control. Yeah I know...there are a lot of "whatabouts" you could come up with here, I could spend all day coming up with them also. And yeah, I know all about civil forfeiture, and the global financial crisis, and fiat currency, the whole thing being made up to serve elites, etc...none of that matters to the point I am making:

my point is NOT that the government does this WELL or better than a hypothetical system might, but rather that they control the system through currency now and are not going to relinquish that power, ever. So it doesn't matter even if blockchain solves some edge-case problems of validation and trust for individual citizens or businesses, it will never be adopted as a primary means of exchange exactly because it dis-intermediates our governments.

Unless of course they decide to make their own crypto currency and control it themselves, which of course gets us back to square one.

3

squeevey t1_iyejdv7 wrote

I'm picking up what you're laying down. You make some good arguments. I dig it.

> So...can you explain why the government would ever allow a decentralized currency?

Because other countries allow it. If they don't get in the game, then there's money left on the table. Rich gotta be Rich.

If you play ONLY in crypto - it's a bit shadier in the sense that the IRS can't exactly keep track of your income (it's a LOT harder). So then they trust you're reporting your income correctly so they can tax you accordingly. Same with state governments. Government wants taxes. Since this is a digital game, you gotta play to even stay in the game, otherwise money is left on the table.

USDC is exactly that: https://www.investopedia.com/usd-coin-5210435 it's a "stablecoin". The article talks about those too.

Really good article that really makes you think about the current financial system and the future.

1

Kenny_McCormick001 t1_iydn2ty wrote

You’re prescribing the problem as the solution. You’re correct that people are quick to trust (aka lazy), but then proposed that EVERYONE should verify every single details in a decentralized ledger. How’s that even remotely possible based on human nature?

15

squeevey t1_iyea4uo wrote

I'm proposing that the creators need to put their codes out there, and elaborate them more so the joe & jane anyperson can do reasonable read through.

I'm technologically adept, yet, crypto is fuckin MURKY.

So until a group can demonstrate to the lay person how their project is validated and not just a money grab, these projects won't gain the ubiquity needed.

0

koreth t1_iydpze9 wrote

> people did not VERIFY the different contracts to make sure the were doing the CORRECT thing. It needs code review.

Professional programmers often suck at code review and miss glaring bugs even when they're reviewing actual code. What were the chances of this ever leading to bug-free contracts?

10

squeevey t1_iye9d61 wrote

isn't that the argument for open source? Deprecate contracts and create a new one?

−1

undeleted_username t1_iydpho4 wrote

>An decentralized ledger can matter, especially for systems that are inherently distrustful.

The key here is "can"... yes, the technology behind the blockchain is solid and full of possibilities; but, right now, the reality is that it has no practical use.

3

Blackadder_ t1_iydn46k wrote

Let me ask you this: can blockchain offer say, Twitter verified account and thus create trust that any tweet from this account is legit?

2

squeevey t1_iyeawr4 wrote

I'd encourage you to read the article. It and its pros and cons are discussed.

0

Blackadder_ t1_iyebj0g wrote

The article addresses currency related. That’s not my question. This is why rest of the world cannot get behind blockchain when it’s always about it’s decentralized so it’s always good without offering meaningful use cases or when asked if blockchain could solve trust issue on a specific topic that is not some made up currency

2

squeevey t1_iyehwrl wrote

Is social trust not a form of currency?

For your twitter example: You register your "domain" on the ethereum name service (ENS). (you would have known that had you read the article). Then use the ENS as part of your twitter. Then in your public digital actions (and even in real life), you share your ENS domain. Done. You are linked to that. Because famous people have loud voices.

How about joe average? How would he get verified? He'd submit his ID, right? Then it has to go through the credit bureau (talk about a closed black box system). So you have private companies managing your social credit.

1

sexygodzilla t1_iyev9n3 wrote

> The problem is that TRUST is what got us a lot of issues in 2008.

How does a decentralized ledger prevent a bunch of corrupt bankers with already poor oversight bundling high risk home mortgages? I feel like you're just taking a generalized view of 2008 and vaguely waving blockchain at it like it's a solution.

2

squeevey t1_iyezl2i wrote

I'm not sure if you're taking the piss or what.

But my argument is that a decentralized ledger is verified by many parties openly. That's the first part.

The second part is about verification - to ACCEPT a decentralized system where we don't have to TRUST the banks are doing it right, we need to verify.

The 2008 example is about the corruption, the trust, and lack of verification that screwed over many people.

The same shit happens now on blockchains because people need to (but don't) VERIFY. So when a new "on-chain" company starts whatever "crypto" company I'm saying THEY NEED to show people how to independently verify the mechanics of their code.

If I - a stranger - gave you an executable file and said "hey, pay me money, and run this file, and it will deposit money to you" - would you do it? NO! I would hope you wouldn't.

However, if I -a stranger- said "hey, here is this cool program I made that takes in X tokens and gives Y tokens over time based on Z events, and here is how to look at that code - here and here and here. This is what this does here. If you go to here and see this, this is why it works." You may be skeptical, but you would you would also be more likely to dig in and verify it.

So my point is that ALL the experts leading up to the mortgage crisis didn't do their due diligence. The people taking on variable rate mortgages didn't do their due diligence. Basically anybody that fucked around - found out. There were even regular people who thought they were getting a "regular" mortgage to find out they too got fucked.

All because they trusted without verifying.

1