undefined | Better HN

0 pointsBloedcoins1y ago0 comments

The blockchain is decentralized (as far as you can call it decentralized when a lot of stuff is running on well known cloud providers or you actualyy don't know if someone circumvented the staking mechanism and owns more staking server that you know, imagine a state actor like china) but all the assets are not.

You still need the centralized classical PoS system to make sure that these assets are actually lawfully owned by the right people.

Also for plenty of big companies, a decentralized system is dimetral to their standing. I 'trust' visa.

"For example, a bank could automate processes like administering complex lines of credit using smart contracts and use fiat-backed tokens to release payments when payment terms are met." this even reads like a weird joke. Imagine some expert being needed by a smart contract to evaluate if a flat has the estimated value. The expert needs to verify themselve against a system to even be able to add this trusted expertise onto the blockchain. This requires an additional trust anker because again blockchain doesn't add any trust at all and than nothing is left of the original blockchain besides a standardized way of publishing some information decentral.

You could have done this 20 years ago with public/private keys, certificate authority and ah yeah i think you know how our ca system works right? :P

Edit: "There is a growing ecosystem where tokenized real-world assets are being issued across multiple permissioned and public blockchain networks. " thats even a better joke. Cross blockchain transactions are not a solved problem. Peple lost billions due to this... Apparently who ever does this project in Visa has 0 idea what they are doing. Dead on birth

0 comments

yieldcrv1y ago

what you’re missing is that its not about an ethos of decentralization, its about the alternatives being inadequate in having a similar platform at all

using standardized public smart contract platforms sufficiently abstracts the level of development needed to maintain these clients and accounts, since the platform and other nodes handle that. the alternative is some other cloud platform, where you have to write everything from scratch and do all the typical dev ops and system design and pay for it all, in smart contract platforms you deploy once and there is unlimited free reading bandwidth and your users pay to write to your application. until that is seen anywhere else, the blockchains will continue attracting developers and their audiences forever

interfacing with liquidity pools and the rest of the infrastructure on smart contract platforms is also part of the benefit

it doesn't matter that you could do this 20 years ago, the frictions towards doing it were too high

not having an ethos of decentralization aside, the reduced friction does rely on the permissionless, transparent, and at least distributed aspect of the public blockchain

they can interact with blockchains that way, you can choose not to use it while still using blockchains your way. who cares if they are using blockchains for a centralized product, organizations have been doing that for 10 years which means the fact you're only triggered now means the permissionless aspect of blockchains is working

BloedcoinsOP1y ago

Just that you need to aling on one blockchain (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_blockchains). So if i would be VISA or anyone else, i would just create a visachain without any need for distributed, public etc.

And cross chain transaaction is not a solved problem.

Also for financial transactions and things, i do not want them public. Now i need some magic zero knowledge system and a trust anker. Who verifies the trust anker? again a company.

Its not getting easier or frictionless at all just because blockchain and smart contracts.

I also don't see any advantage for a company to let random people run my transactions and paying others instead of just doing it myself.

Also user don't run blockchains. A normal company will just go to another company to do that the same thing as we do today. Do you think a company will just deploy a smart contract and then out of thin air someone else calls it? No another computer system would call it which also needs to run somewhere.

yieldcrv1y ago

Visa chose public EVMs already supported by the industry and market

Take it up with them, “visachain” doesn’t inspire the same level of confidence for their stakeholders and shows competitors how to offer something without spinning up or maintaining their own blockchain, and wouldn’t have the rest of the DeFi infrastructure, namely liquidity pool from unrelated parties

Private transactions is its own niche that happens in parallel to this

The existence of either application doesnt preclude each other from occurring or gaining traction or changing the nature of the permissionless distributed system

1 more reply

acejam1y ago

> You could have done this 20 years ago with public/private keys, certificate authority and ah yeah i think you know how our ca system works right? :P

This comment made me chuckle a little bit because blockchain has been around since at least 2009, which was ~15 years ago.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsBloedcoins1y ago0 comments

You still need the centralized classical PoS system to make sure that these assets are actually lawfully owned by the right people.

Also for plenty of big companies, a decentralized system is dimetral to their standing. I 'trust' visa.

You could have done this 20 years ago with public/private keys, certificate authority and ah yeah i think you know how our ca system works right? :P

0 comments

yieldcrv1y ago

what you’re missing is that its not about an ethos of decentralization, its about the alternatives being inadequate in having a similar platform at all

interfacing with liquidity pools and the rest of the infrastructure on smart contract platforms is also part of the benefit

it doesn't matter that you could do this 20 years ago, the frictions towards doing it were too high

not having an ethos of decentralization aside, the reduced friction does rely on the permissionless, transparent, and at least distributed aspect of the public blockchain

BloedcoinsOP1y ago

And cross chain transaaction is not a solved problem.

Also for financial transactions and things, i do not want them public. Now i need some magic zero knowledge system and a trust anker. Who verifies the trust anker? again a company.

Its not getting easier or frictionless at all just because blockchain and smart contracts.

I also don't see any advantage for a company to let random people run my transactions and paying others instead of just doing it myself.

yieldcrv1y ago

Visa chose public EVMs already supported by the industry and market

Private transactions is its own niche that happens in parallel to this

The existence of either application doesnt preclude each other from occurring or gaining traction or changing the nature of the permissionless distributed system

1 more reply

acejam1y ago

> You could have done this 20 years ago with public/private keys, certificate authority and ah yeah i think you know how our ca system works right? :P

This comment made me chuckle a little bit because blockchain has been around since at least 2009, which was ~15 years ago.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse