Saledovil @ Saledovil @sh.itjust.works

Posts

2

Comments

405

Joined

2 yr. ago

So a lot of people like evil characters who are good parents?

Thing is, we don't need to make fraud impossible, we just have to make sure that it is always detectable. We know who the devs are, and if we can prove when they abuse their authority, they can be sued and their reputation would be ruined. This should proof a sufficient deterrent, and allow damage to repaired through compensation.

My knee is doing better now. Thanks for your concern.

I’m more concerned about what happens when the central authority disappears. I think everyone has experienced a game being dropped by the studio, and if it’s an MMO or something, you could lose valuable items you’ve purchased even if third party servers exist.

Well, under my model, somebody else could take over for the central authority, as they just need the most recent version of the ledger. Since stakeholders of transactions are supposed to retain copies, that shouldn't be too difficult.

The moment work needs to be done off chain, be that hosting servers or enforcing the law, the blockchain loses its one advantage. I suppose the best verification mechanism would be proof of identity, where key players are known and can't get a new pseudonym.

I typed that right after I got home from a long hike, and i fell and hit my knee on the way back, so I was rather tired when I last replied to you.

The point being is that since some trust in a central authority is required, the central authority can handle verification. And because of the cryptographic signatures, the only way they could cheat would by ommitting transactions. Invalid transactions, either because its unsigned or because the numbers don't add up, can be detected trivially. So if we just give all stakeholders a copy of the transaction, they'd be able to prove that the transaction has been ommitted.

The presence of parties powerful enough to screw you over without using trickery removes the value of decentralized verification. Even if the central authority refuses to merge it, I can proof that they refused to merge it without good reason. The central authority could take my house and disregard the blockchain if they so choose, and at that point, all I could do is prove that they screwed me.

Thing is, forming a chain by having each entry reference the checksum of the previous one is also used by the version control system git, which preceded bitcoin, being released in 2005 as opposed to 2009. So technically, it's not blockchain technology, it's git technology. In fact, you could easily implement this sort of thing with a git repository. E.g. say you want to keep track of real estate. Have a file for every piece of real estate, and when somebody wants to sell something, they create a branch, and append the file for the real estate they want to sell. They sign the commit. Likely, the buyer and a notary will also add signed commits. Then a clerk at town hall checks if all necesarry signatures are there, and merges it back into the main branch.

But even then, it makes sense to not bother with any sort of mining, and just have an append only ledger with cryptographic signatures. Let anybody who wants download a copy, and you have all the advantages of blockchain.

Well, what would actually happen in this scenario is that he'd not be able to afford the 10,000$ a week, and get into debt, likely overdraft charges, at 20% interest a year. As a result, he'd soon be so far in the whole, that he'd have no chance of ever accumulating any sort of wealh.

For real, though, I'm unsure what even is the point of this post? Is this some sort of anti universal basic income propaganda?