HN user
Crypto is the most anti-authoritarian and anti-nazi technology of 21st century. It empowers the individual and makes them less vulnerable to state violence, like getting their wealth confiscated because of their ethnicity.
You've proven multiple times that you have no idea what you're talking about.
Why I am not surprised that your ideas closely match how authoritarian system (and dystopian cyber punk worlds) work?
Imagine calling P2P voluntary interactions authoritarian...
You're avoiding the answer, and I understand you, it's hard to come with an answer when your design have bugs.
I'm not avoiding an answer, I gave you it clear and straight.
If Alice dies Bob get his money.
Correct.
There no way to stop it from happening.
What if Bob is a minor or the employer is a minor? That would make the contract void in real life.
Depends on jurisdiction.
Should people publish their personal info on the public blockchain so that the smart contract can exclude them from proposing or accepting a job?
They can do whatever they want.
And how do you check that the informations are correct?
Idk. I wasn't proposing putting public info on the blockchain, it's your problem.
What if Bob is an immigrant running from a regime and has no way to prove who he is, but needs the job to survive?
Bob would be delighted to know that he can interact with a permissionless network that does not require an ID and get paid for his work without revealing his identity.
you'd need to basically recreate what government do today, without the enforcement of the law capability.
Nope.
who would trust a system like that, except outlaws and scammers?
People who like efficiency and don't like intermediaries.
Cope.
who decides? and how
I was talking about Kleros at the beginning of the discussion, but it's just one possible option.
You can only hire someone for a job if you have the money.
No, you can only hire someone for a job using this specific method if you have the money beforehand. This means that Bob can be 100% sure that his employer is capable of paying him.
In reality many people hire someone for a job and thanks to their help they'll have the money to repay them in the future.
There can be other smart contracts which allow this. The cool thing about them is that Bob is always fully aware whether his employer has the funds to pay him or it's just an IOU.
But what if Alice disappeared because she's dead, and Bob id the one who killed her?
This is outside of our threat model. We're designing a smart contract for employing a freelancer, not high value SC where murder would be economically viable. If Bob murders Alice this is handled the same way as any other murder.
Laws are not ideal and are often used to discriminate against certain groups.
immagine this situation, Bob does the job, the other party never clicks on "done", Bob doesn't get the money, what Bob can do if there's no intermediary and/or bureaucracy protecting him?
As I said, there is a period of funds lock-up. In the worst case, Bob has to wait some time until the smart contract sends him his payment.
Running this basic escrow code on the blockchain means that I no longer have to trust the kind of basic escrow code that’s used in centralised escrows
Yes, it means that you will 100% know that the escrow website is not gambling your money away, that it won't out of the blue ask you to supply more documents when it finally comes the time for you to get paid, it means that the escrow won't get hacked and your PII won't be sold on darknet.
Smart contracts are just a simpler and more transparent way to deal with finance.
He can work for Alice or anyone else in the world without having to deal with intermediaries and bureaucracy.
No, it's running completely on smart contracts. You get the regular advantages of running on blockchain: permissionless and trustless access to finance.
You don't have to trust the escrow holder, you don't have to worry about getting banned from Ebay.
Getting all the data in the world into the blockchain and coding smart contracts to infer judgement from it would be too complex and expensive.
A more practical approach is to transfer the funds to Bob once he clicks on the checkbox and have some lock-up period, so that Alice has the opportunity to trigger a dispute if she needs to.
Then the dispute can be resolved by a private court (composed of humans) that both Alice and Bob agreed on beforehand. See: https://kleros.io
More than 2 billions of people live in authoritarian regimes where the government rules exist only to oppress the population and make it more easily controlled. Bitcoin gives them the option to maintain their property rights, avoid financial surveillance and money controls. Saying that crypto is only used for ponzi schemes is simply false and disingenuous.
Aave has $11 billion deposited on it right now and safety of those funds depend completely on getting accurate price data to trigger liquidations. So you can say that the oracle problem is solved, at least for price data.
who decides when the work is done?
This is part of the smart contract, which has to explicitly define the conditions on which the collateral is confiscated.
Getting real life data reliably into the blockchain is hard, but there are different approaches to solve this.
You would either need an arbitration service or an oracle for that. Look into Kleros and Chainlink.
This is wrong, all PoS cryptocurrencies are extremely centralized. Try running a validator on Avalanche, see how it goes.
Is this sarcasm, or are you actually saying that freedom is not worth the spent energy?
Bitcoin is now used by El Salvador to avoid borrowing money from IMF. Is that also a ponzi scheme?
DeFi is much more transparent than traditional finance.
CBDCs have nothing to do with crypto. It's just PR by politicians.
No, that's not how LN works. If the other party suddenly closes the channel at an old state that is beneficial to them, the funds will get locked for 2 weeks and you will have enough time to publish a transaction with a more recent state, which will reward you with whole balance of the channel [0].
Nope, there aren't. Even Ethereum is centralized to the point that it's founders were able to revert the blockchain to rescue their friends funds.
Miners and exchanges were proponents of big blocks, since that would have centralized power in their hands and reduced decentralization. Bitmain, Coinbase, many others.
This makes sense to anyone with a tech background. You don't want to use censorship-resistant, decentralized currency which is used every day to settle billions to buy coffee. That would be an overkill.
Instead, you use LN which allows to trustlessly instantly transfer small amounts of Bitcoin for extremely low fees.