/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>8257655
>"adoption" is "people buying things from stores"
But that's what adoption really means. A few companies utilizing smart contracts is not mass adoption.

>>8257655
Also on the front page of CryptoCurrency sub

https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/83gtq7/open_letter_to_the_bogdanov_brothers/

>>8257655
>Daily reminder that r/CryptoCurrency thinks "adoption" is "people buying things from stores"
It is though you mouth breather.

>>8257699
Just arrived from Reddit, huh?
>But that's what adoption really means
It will never happen, and you know it, and even if it does, it will be stablecoins.

>a few companies
lol, no

>>8257715
>Daily reminder that r/CryptoCurrency thinks "adoption" is "people buying things from stores"
No it isn't. It's far too volatile, no one wants to buy anything with speculative shitcoins except diehard anarchist and technopunks because everyone hoards them as a store of value.

If any cryptocurrency was going to be used for payments, it would be one with a stable value.

If you look at research that is being done on crypto, you'll find that the REAL applications that are coming are extremely boring, corporate, business applications.

Take the red pill.

>>8257655
Kek
Retard

>>8257699
Not a single crypto beats bank credit for daily use, or even comes close.

The first one that does you want to go balls deep for a real interdimensional ride.

>>8257699
A few companies adopting smart contracts and enjoying a competitive advantage is going to lead to mass adoption. Some soylent drinking fag buying his wife a BBC dildo with Litecoin isn't adoption.

>>8257655
Dubs of truth

Those Nano-loving retards are really gonna kick themselves once they realized that their babies XRP and NANO are designed to be currency first, assets later. Their centralized natures, limitless supplies, and desire to be used for all quick easy payments basically ensures that once the speculative value of the coins get wiped away, they will fall and settle on a single price forever.

>>8257767
The masses don't need smart contracts. Thus, you cannot call a niche entity a "mass adoption" thing.

>>8257812
>The masses don't need smart contracts
The entirety of capitalism is based on contracts

>>8257730
>>8257765
>It will never happen
If it never happens, then there will be no mass adoption.

>muh smartcontracts

nothing smart about them, sure legit bussines will use chainlink and something owned by a guy named Vitalik.
you wish
currency coins are the only coins that are gonna stay

>>8257829
Smart contracts are limited to digitalized data. They have a limited application in real life and cannot substitute real contracts. You cannot digitalize reality.

>>8257812
>the masses don't need a thing that will make a thing they all rely on better in every way

Please fucking kill yourself you retard

>>8257838
>Gartner has estimated that by 2022, so-called ratified unbundled (i.e. defined impact) smart contracts will be in use by more than 25% of global organizations

>>8257885
What thing?

>>8257829
Agreed and in the end it will be so seamless people wont even know they are on a smartcontract

>>8257873
>what is an oracle
That's the exciting thing Anon, you can invest in smart contracts and oracles right now before true mass adoption arrives.

>>8257911
Oracles rely on digitalized data too.

>>8257812
You don't understand. If smart contracts confer businesses a competitive advantage, then they will become standard across the industries that benefit from them. Then the infrastructure will become less specialized and more idiot proof, allowing for normie adoption. Same with microcomputers, the internet, cellular phones, late pdas/early smartphones, cloud storage etc. Business adoption is the start of real widespread adoption. If you wait for the normietrain, you're too late.

>>8257655
yeah well i mean you went to reddit and brought back something retarded i don't know why you couldn't have just looked at what was written and fucking left it there? why bring it here? i don't need to know what they think. about ANYTHING.

>>8257924
>you cant digitalise reality
what the fuck does this even mean?
You can, and it's going to happen through smart contracts connected to oracles. Don't get left behind.

>>8257894
Do you realize the underlying semantics of the word "mass adoption"? It implies the broad masses of the population.

Satoshi literally called it "eletronic cash" though...

>>8257941
Evidently a number of people here also think it. Have you seen these retards in this thread saying Reddit is correct?

>>8257956
A person arbitrarily characterizing a real-life event as either "true" or "false" in the digital form is a single point of failure.

>>8257960
It doesn't imply individual human beings with Nano wallets on their iPhone. That will never happen.
Mass adoption will be when businesses are all using DLT and making money from it.

>>8257896
Contracts. You wouldn't understand because you're a NEET who has never had to do anything, but contracts are civilization.

>>8258014
That's nothing more but intellectual dishonesty when you substitute the original idea of mass adoption of crypto with merely a technological gimmick

>>8257984
What the fuck does this even mean. Do you even understand what a smart contract is? while they can be triggered by humans, that's a shitty oracle solution, so they would ideally be automatic (and not arbitrary but based on pre-defined conditions).

>>8258025
Read this >>8257873

>>8258063
Only ful

>>8258052
>the original idea of mass adoption of crypto
Cling to your cryptopunk ideals, but it's not gonna happen
>merely a technological gimmick
If you think smart contracts are a technological gimmick you're deluded

Also your posts don't make much sense, are you high?

>>8257655

I don't see any reason why a government would use a public cryptocurrency over forking their own.

>>8258073
Literally fucking everybody in modern civilization does something digitally that requires a contract you daft cunt.

>>8257873
>They have a limited application in real life and cannot substitute real contracts
Literally the opposite of this is true.

>>8258063
Only fully digitized events can be automated with smart contracts in a trustless way (like financial or trading operations). Otherwise you're relying on a third party.

>>8257812

Th masses don't know what they want until it's given to them.

Same thing was siad about the internet in the beginning.

>>8258108
Read this >>8257984

>>8257873
>>8257984
subtle link shill

>>8257761

All of which will be developed in-house. Best case, they’ll be forks of an existing codebase on a proprietary blockchain.

Why would banks buy Ripple tokens at market price, for example, and expose clients’ transfers to the insane volatility of today’s crypto “markets?” Far better to fork (aka copy) the code, and only let other banks participate in their new, faster, hard-forkable-if-absolutely-necessary transfer system.

>>8258093
>Cling to your cryptopunk ideals, but it's not gonna happen
If it's not gonna happen, then there will not be mass adoption.

>>8258188
No, I am not a stinky

>>8258124
>>8258149
Hmmmm I wonder who's right.
A retard FUDding smart contracts on a Mongolian basket weaving forum.
Or multiple research institutes, consortiums, researchers and businesses all looking into implementing smart contracts.

Name one thing that cannot be digitised for a smart contract.

>>8258220
>If it's not gonna happen, then there will not be mass adoption.
Holy fuck stop obsessing about the semantics around mass adoption you pedantic autistic fuck. You know very well it just means "is widely used".

>>8257655
I first thought this board was just shitting on Reddit for the fucks of it but it does seem like Reddit is the place for retards to act smart

>>8258230
Everything can be digitized when a designated person types in his computer "event A took place in real life and is valid". But in that case he is a single point of failure

>>8257655
>Daily reminder that "currency" cryptos are Reddit-tier worthless investments
Finally another anon on this god forsaken board understands.

>>8257782

Nano isn't centralized you brainlet.

>>8258073
>>8258073
>can't digitalize
Kek, it's 'digitize.' And, what are mandatory electronic health records, what are e-signed agreements etc. This is unreal, how can there be people who have been inundated with link shilling for 6 months straight and who still haven't bothered to think about digital agreements and smart contracts.

>>8258289
I just expained to you that smart contracts, while they CAN be based on manual human input like this, won't be. They are best when they are automatic, triggered off a feed of data, provided by an oracle. A centralised oracle is a central point of failure. A decentralized one, on the other hand....? Mate, you really need to read more about this before you try to talk about it.

>>8258319
>completely dependent on the development and marketing of one central company, which also issues and holds the coin itself
>not centralized

Retard.

>>8258362
>They are best when they are automatic, triggered off a feed of data, provided by an oracle.
That feed of data in turn boils down to human input, UNLESS we're talking about fully digital events (financial operations). That's where smart contracts are most effective.

>>8258351
Cryptographic proof of ownership =/= fully trustless system

>>8258444
>That feed of data in turn boils down to human input,
If you think that all the datasets in the world, except for finance, are generated by people typing away at computers, you're an idiot.
Web APIs and IoT will be very useful for smart contracts.
And even if data has been collected by humans, that's fine, if for the purpose of your contract, you will accept that.
There is no central point of failure when the oracle is decentralised - regardless of the source of the data.

>>8257655

Adoption in the short term will definitely not mean people paying a restaurant bill in litecoin. As is usual with all technological innovations (read Christensen on disruptive innovation), adoption will first involve usage in some *niche* area in a clunky but useful way, eventually becoming essential, and eventually becoming the obvious path forward for less niche areas. This niche might be remittances for poos in SV, it might be smart contracts for landlords, who knows.

However this is still thinking without foresight. r/cryptocurrency normies are assuming that we'll still be "picking up dinner" and so on as we currently are, just with a crypto being the mechanism of payment rather than cash? Highly unlikely. The way we interact with service providers is going to change significantly due to IoT and blockchain/microtransactions.

Adoption being "paying for dinner with litecoin" will, in the future, sound like a guy in the 1900s who's excited about engine tech saying "eventually, every horse will have a motor attached".

>>8258319
Nano is centralized. Otherwise, it can't have "free transactions".

>>8258489
Very thoughtful post, can you recommend something in particular to read by Christensen?

>>8258485
Iot is a meme and 10+ years away.

By then current coins will be forgotten

>>8258485
APIs are just intermediaries, they transform DIGITAL data from one format into another, nothing more. You seemingly don't even understand what you're talking about. Most human activities take place in real life and are not subject to automated verification. You can't invent electronic sensors for literally everything. Rent, supply chain, divorce, whatever. That's why you can't get rid of trusted third parties. A person who inputs data in a computer is always a single point of failure because he is subject to bias and fraud.

>>8257655
Daily reminder that Ripple is building out the infrastructure for "adoption" by the banks, central banks, and multinational corporations.

>>8257655
>Speculative moon kiddie wants speculative moons to last forever

>>8258537
Yeah, read The Innovator's Dilemma. There are pdfs everywhere if you don't want to buy it. You've probably heard the phrase 'disruptive innovation' a million times, but it's almost always used incorrectly. This was the book where he coined the phrase, describes how they happen with graphs and figures and historical examples. It'll open your eyes to why it keeps happening again and again, and why people continually fail to see big changes on the horizon. Quick enough read too.

>>8258597
If you think this is a barrier to smart contract adoption, at all, you're retarded.

>>8258664
Yeah, but it's rather retarded to fuss so much over decentralization when the potential point of failure is so plain and clear

>>8258497
we are literally at the point where corporations are printing their own money. Reminds me when money was not centralized by the state.

>>8257655
all that matters is that the pedophile papers currently in use are done away with, we can follow up with even more once that is complete first as a pre-requisite

>>8258489

What tokens do you think have a good chance of becoming adopted? Most sound pretty useless.

>>8258777
also cheked

>>8258777
This. I don't give a fuck about smart contracts desu.

anyone got good info about contracts? I mean statistics and such. Would be a good indicator how many of them could be transformed into smart contracts.

>>8258755
Decentralization removes this failure by aggregation of results, trustworthiness rankings, etc.

>>8258870
how do you decentralize if most contracts are between 2 parties. Like if the goods arrived or are working?

Most chainlink etc will be able to is allowing decentralized betting on real life events, since that data is public.

>>8258870
When your data is provided by a human, decentralization is just an infrastructural gimmick

>>8258755
The point is moot. It's a point of failure that exists already for regular contracts.

I liked the idea that one could beat the illuminati money system with bitcoin.
But now I see microchips and digital ID's transplanted into humans to be able to render the whole trust issue in the world through smart contracts.

>>8258948
So there's no big difference in the end.

>>8258948
with regular contracts you have lawyers and common sense you can use. People are much calmer if they can dispute a contract instead of listening to the all might anonymous network.

>>8258801
Don't know desu, that's why I'm just all in on promising platforms (Ethereum) so I don't have to learn about tokens on that platform. My logic is that if the value of some ERC20 takes off in a major way, the value of ETH will have to remain multiples of it, if only for security reasons.

My gut sense is that anything to do with remittances will have to take off eventually because a) it's a pain in the ass sending money around the world even in first world countries and b) it accounts for massive flows of money annually.

>>8257984
Ahaha it's this idiot again, always same guy

>>8258850
i give a fuck about crypto and smartcontracts insofar as it is a tool for me to use to create my vision

my entire goal and objective in this space is to use these tools as a spear to penetrate the eye of the needle and pass through from the absurd world (read: modern society and civilization where european nihilism is advocated under 1000 different disguises) and usher in the new era of the New Man and end the freedoms of the rubes (see average modern man)

Why is it when people talk about a real world application of a smart contract being better than a regular one, nobody can ever provide an example?

I'm not referring to things like financial institutions speaking to each other

>>8259020
Elaborate. If you saw another guy telling this obvious truth, it was not me.

>>8259043
cause it is not. Just deluded linkes hoping for the next Ethereum.

>>8258983
Except for efficiency and cost.
>>8259003
Those fags will still be around, but firms will need fewer of them for clerical purposes on settled contracts that don't lead to dispute. Computers can easily do that job once there is a digital standard. And you can code smart contracts to have an escrow period for manual review once settlement conditions are submtted. It will be easy to establish belief in the system as cost savings become obvious.

>>8259325
>Except for efficiency and cost.
With the added cost of human error in an immutable system.

>>8259325
>>8259003
mfw law merges with computer science in the exact same way that areas such as chemistry/biology/neuroscience/archaeology have in the last 10. In 10 years there'll be a branch of law which specialises in smart contracts, and which pushes the area technologically. In 15 years there'll be degree courses in computational law.

>>8259043
literally everything where one thing is triggered by another thing

>>8257765
Explain

>>8257873
Best subtle link shilling I've ever seen. Congrats on this, seriously.

>>8259043
Imagine insurance companies paying out after natural disasters (like hurricanes). You have builders required to build up to a certain code, say 100 mph wind speed. If the wind speed goes over 100 mph the insurance company pays out. However if wind speed is below 100 mph, the builder (or their insurance company) pays out. Now you need a decentralized data solution. Both parties have a interest in knowing the wind speed and knowing that the weather data is accurate. You can build smart contracts that will execute payments based on this data (potentially millions of dollars).

I'll never post again.

>>8259368
Which can be minimized at first by running the legacy process in parallel with smart contracts to work out the kinks. And, there can be automated review and built-in escrow if necessary. If that's the best argument you have against smart contracts then you better figure out how to invest in them.
>>8259432
Feels good, man.

>>8259593
I have more examples. Hundreds actually. It's to early though. The world isn't ready to hear it.

>>8257873
Best subtle jibrel shilling I've ever seen. Congrats on this, seriously.

>>8259604
You're right there's literally hundreds of examples. it's not the right time to prove it. I'll wait. Patience.

>>8257984
Another subtle link shill stealthily showing the power of decentralized oracles. Congrats on this, seriously.

>>8259604
Automatic escrows are good, but you can never get rid of human involvement if you're dealing with real life events rather than digital ones. Which means, immutable smart contracts simply don't make sense in this case.

>>8259593
That's an idealistic vision, when you have to dispute the outcome due to human or technical errors or for any other reason, decentralized solutions don't give any additional benefit

>>8259556
>>8259688
I am not shilling stinky linky. Please use arguments.

>>8258981
That's a good point.

>>8259727
I'm sorry I don't see how human involvement in the contract process precludes the use of smart contracts. Immutability doesn't mean indisputability. Smart contracts can lower overhead on contracts that settle with no friction or disagreement between parties. They do not promise to make contract law or error obsolete.

>>8259727
anon im not sure if youre being deliberately stubborn or something but it seems to me that youre simply pushing for the cons instead of seeing the pros about it. im just some other retard on an image board for autists but there are lots of smart people out there (the WEF article is something i go back to) that are clamoring over the benefits of smart contracts that i think it's stupid to simply handwave away the benefits by simply saying "the cons outweighs the pros" because that's what you just did. admittedly this is the only thing that is keeping me from investing in chainlink because i do not know how to put a number on the potential gains of firms/businesses adopting it (aka if it is really beneficial) so i agree with you in some way. i dont know how much more cheaper and efficient their processes would be, etc etc. so i can only read about other people in the know, and in that case, they are pretty much agreeing on that point, that it'd save billions, etc. i wont put money on it though since it seems stupid to invest in something that's not perfectly clear to me but i am not simply gonna balk at it or something

>>8259874
regarding this, it's funny imagining "oops it's in the blockchain now no takebacks" esp if you consider that businesses can simply run their own private blockchains that they can rollback when agreed upon

>>8259874
Now consider that most of the time both regular people and organizations follow contractual obligations based on mutual trust and relationships and in order to reach mutual agreement they need neither a third party mediator, nor an automatic escrow. Which narrows down the potential use of smart contracts even more.

>>8259897
There's no doubt that smart contracts are useful, but people with an idealistic vision are pushing things into realms too detached from reality

>>8259935
The escrow idea was an example of something like a time delay that parties could agree upon while establishing trust in a smart contract protocol. Programmatic escrow or delay is not the important feature of smart contracts, evem though it's possible because of them. Nice try though.

smart contracts getting rid of lawyers reminds me of all the Ai will get rid of lawyers stuff. Altho smart contracts are more feasible than AI it still is overblown futurism.

>>8258147
The masses are brain dead nigger IQ slaves.
Don't group us with those normies.

>>8257655

Fuck that OP, you're a faggot. While yeah, smart contracts are going to be huge we still need good adoption of currency cryptos - prob just 1 or 2 like BTC and LTC, and XRP for the Jews.

>>8259593
insurance automatically pays out to house based on wind speed. Dafuq. First the insurance wants to see whether your house is actually destroyed.

what happens when existing bussinesses start making their own smart contracts and offer a flat fee to buy in with the click of a button?

>>8257873
Your perception of reality is actually just data that your brain processes through your biological sensors

Reductio Ad Absurdum

>>8258489
> sound like a guy in the 1900s who's excited about engine tech saying "eventually, every horse will have a motor attached

my understanding of crypto, great analogy

>>8257873
>You cannot digitalize reality.
Reality is digital fag.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogmBfwcIhug&t=194s

I can’t use Reddit anymore fuck

>>8258209
>why bother with Windows spreadsheets when you can just fork Linux's knockoff.
People are too stupid to homebrew.

>>8258209
Also,
>why buy the milk when you can buy a cow?

>>8259897
Yes.
See
http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/smart-contracts-137872.pdf
and
https://www.capgemini.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/30/2016/10/Smart_Contracts.pdf
It's obvious that the powers that be will work out all the kinks. They're putting in a lot of effort into making this work.

>>8258597
Read the chainlink whitepaper. It's not that long. Then give me your two cents and tell me if you think that token might change your opinion.

>i know more than a group of the smartest people on the internet

this is why no one takes 4chan seriously

>>8257655
>r/CryptoCurrency thinks
There's no distinction between /biz/ and crypto subreddits you dumbo newfag, we just are more careful when posting on reddit in order not to get filtered, our shilling is still rampant.

>>8261157
Redditors larp as intelligent people

>>8261129
Listen, your token relies on data providers. The data providers are a single point of failure, regardless of how you decentralize interaction between smart contracts and those data providers.

>>8257765
>bank transactions can take days (wire) to weeks (ACH)
>wiring costs $25-35 each time
>credit card companies have large surcharges
>middle men take cuts of every transaction small or large
All of these things can be eliminated through crypto

>>8260858
>http://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/files/smart-contracts-137872.pdf
>Compatibility
The use of compatible data fields is
the traditional way in which data is
matched up from different sources.
Currently there is no commonly
accepted standard for data fields
used by competing smart contract
solutions providers.
Despite advances in contextual
data matching techniques, in
something as fundamental as
contract data this could limit
uptake where two parties use
different smart contract solutions.
In due course it can be expected
that a particular solution’s data
fields will become the default
standard by reason of ubiquity,
and in the meantime it may be
necessary for a party to insist that
its counterparty uses the same
smart contract solution.

>>8261266
bank transactions are free over EFT and settle overnight. the credit card company pays me to use their cards

>>8261157
>group of the smartest people on the internet
>reddit
lol

>>8261266
>>wiring costs $25-35 each time
free in first world countries.

Smart contracts are somewhat smart and have their uses. But /biz/ vastly overestimates them. The idea of a smart contract is that the contract is the code - there are no need for lawyers to argue in court, the network executes the code of the contract trustlessly. That's kinda cool.

Think about a typical contract used in business. It might say "When Company A delivers goods to Company B, Company B will pay A $100,000." There might be stipulations for late fees, how fast the payment might come in etc etc. There's no sane way to write that as a smart contract. The blockchain doesn't know that goods were delivered -- only humans know that and its a fuzzy business that can only be determined in a court if things go to the wayside.

>but muh oracles
Sure, you could rewrite it to say "when oracle located at Hash C reports the goods are delivered, automatically pay Company A," but then your contract doesnt make sense in the real world anymore. Company B doesnt care what the oracle reports, it only cares what really happened. You still need a real contract so you can fight it out in courts or what have you. When the participants wont respect the smart contract, it loses its power and any advantage it might have had.

>>8257655
N-no.... this can't be...
should I s-s-sell?

>>8261539
what if both parties simply agree what oracle to use? also, why can't smart contracts be disputed? pretty sure they can work in tandem with the legal system, not necessarily eliminate it

>>8257911
Huh that sounds like something biz would like... wonder why I havent seen any posts about it...

>>8261589
>pretty sure they can work in tandem with the legal system
smart contracts can work in tandem with courts, but then there's no value add over traditional contracts. the whole point of smart contracts is that the code is the contract and there's no disputing the code. but if the legal system can dispute the code, you're back where you started.

>>>8261632
There are cases where automatic resolution for conflicts that were setup originally in the contract would make sense, where the need to go through the legal system wouldn't be required anymore. If both parties don't agree on that outcome, yes the legal system would ultimately who they'd go through to dispute anything.
The less disputes going through the legal system the better.

>>8261539
This, well put

>>8259003
The word "contract" is much more flexible than you think it is. Do you consider buying an icecream to involve a contact? No? Well actually it does.

>>8259935
Lol you dont have the capicity to understand how wrong you are

>>8261908
Neither do you have the arguments to refute any single word

>>8261539
Jesus christ imagine writing all that and not having a clue what youre talking about

>>8261788
>>8261539
Really? This is just one use case, and not a very well thought out one at that.

I could write a smart contract that does exactly that sort of thing, it's essentially escrow tied to milestones. You can have both parties that signed the contract send a transaction saying a milestone is done, and to release the funds. If it's outside the milestone deadline, look at what penalties to apply. If one party says a milestone was fulfilled and the other disagrees, then you can start going through the traditional court system - just like a traditional contract.

>Company B doesnt care what the oracle reports, it only cares what really happened. You still need a real contract so you can fight it out in courts or what have you. When the participants wont respect the smart contract, it loses its power and any advantage it might have had.
This is retarded, if companies are adopting this system, then yes they do care what the oracle reports - it means someone is reporting something incorrectly and is probably gonna get fired for fucking up that badly. You can tie a traditional contract in with a smart contract and courts will respect it since it would be an agreement like any other. Eventually that process will be smoother once this becomes more commonplace in business.

This isn't even getting into all the other things smart contracts can do alone. You know Uber? You know Airbnb? All those kind of "sharing economy" companies? They can be put together with a smart contract, removing the need for a company at all, suddenly you don't need to pay million dollar executives bonuses and all the users on the system save more.

>>8261939
My friend this is a complex topic, if you have decided to not understand then we cant force you.

>>8261632
>>8261734
i was mainly talking about your point regarding disputes, but this other anon already explained it. expediting court cases/trials is a huge deal by the way, other anon understated it imo. i dont know about where youre from but in my country we have a massive backlog of court cases, and justice delayed is justice denied after all. so for the legal system there'd be less cases overall, for the firms/companies there'd be efficiency gains to be had. i don't think the only benefit of smart contracts is the code is law thing. also, i don't know if im simply dumb enough to realize the potential of smart contracts or what but i think that's bordering the delusional idealism that >>8259977 this guy is talking about. from what i understand of it, at the very least, for now, it doesn't aim to replace the legal system anyway (aka what "there's no disputing the code" is trying to imply)

>>8261989
Try refuting this >>8257984

>inb4 mah json parser

>>8257655
The currency use case is actually the one that's guaranteed to happen - supply-limited permissionless sound money will replace infinitely inflationary government-controlled trash. It's the utility tokens that I'd be wary of - there's nothing stopping their competitors from copying their product only without the token.

/biz/ and cryptorebbit are both equally fucking retarded. People here pretend to understand things when they don''t even know anything about cryptography and would stutter on the first line of a whitepaper.

i read somewhere before that these days majority of contracts are simply cut and paste templates that you fit to your needs, seems like those are the ones that would be automated. im not sure if it was just bullshit or not tho

>>8262012
None of your points are worth refuting because you dont understand the basic facts of the discussion.

>>8261968
>one party says a milestone was fulfilled and the other disagrees,
if both parties agreed, you didn't even really need the contract. its only when parties disagree that the contract matters. there's literally no value add if you need to fall back on the courts in the case of a dispute.

and even so a transaction is not an agreement. consider the following objections that would require legal resolution:

>oops, I fat fingered the transaction, the house clearly isnt done as anyone can see
>someone illicitly gained access to my private key, the transaction is void, I never agreed to it and I demand it is reversed

the point is a smart contract is not reality. reality is what matters, not whatever happens to be reported on the blockchain. if you remember the consent chain (where people can agree to have sex via the blockchain) the problem becomes obvious. you can consent on the blockchain, but then revoke your consent and that wont be relfected on the blockchain. in the end, the what the blockchain says is meaningless and what happens in the real world is what matters.

I've thought about what smart contracts will be good at and one idea is democratizing web apps. For example, say I write a music recommendation engine. You tell me songs you like and my program can reccomend you 10 songs you'll love. I might not be able to afford or want to put this on a web page. But if I code this in a smart contract, I can have miners execute my code and users pay the gas to get their music recommended at no cost to me.

>>8262070
you can see a lot of the src code on etherscan of different smart contracts. Sure there's a lot of re-use (since auditing has a cost afterall), but there's still been a lot of innovation over the past year with things like etheroll, cryptokitties, etherdelta, various crowdsales, parity's wallets (lol), etc.

Dear diary. Today OP was retarded.
>>8254811

>>8257873
>You cannot digitalize reality
This is by far one of the dumbest sentences I have ever read on this Taiwanese Cooking Forum.
Congrats on this. Seriously.

>>8260858
Thanks for the links anon.

>>8262103
>if both parties agreed, you didn't even really need the contract. its only when parties disagree that the contract matters. there's literally no value add if you need to fall back on the courts in the case of a dispute.
You can open the smart contract up to 3rd party independent dispute resolvers that both parties agreed to before hand, or even have the legal system work through that. Putting it through a smart contract allows for disputes to bypass the courts unless one party believes it to be truly necessary.
>oops, I fat fingered the transaction, the house clearly isnt done as anyone can see
>someone illicitly gained access to my private key, the transaction is void, I never agreed to it and I demand it is reversed
pretty much the same scenario as "oops i paid before the job was finished and they're not giving it back." same problem, same solution.
clearly tying the real world to the blockchain is a problem, just like tying things on the internet to reality. it will be somewhat mitigated when it becomes accepted it as a common way to do business because when it's accepted, people will start to care about making sure it's operating correctly. Just like any shipping company, you can ask :
>but what if the tracking isn't done right, reality is what matters not whatever their system says about where the package is
It's a somewhat solved problem because it's not new. employees scan packages when it hits different areas, they make sure it's operating correctly. When it's this new fringe thing, it's hard for people to get it.

>>8262103
The value add is in the efficiency. Take the construction industry for example. Imagine a smart contract where the bank financing a project, the general contractor, and the sub-contractors are all parties. Currently, if a plumber sub contractor installs a toilet, they have to submit a invoice to the general contractor who has to constantly be submitting paperwork to the bank to get money to issue payments back down the line. This is done with faxes and pdf email attachments that are often at the mercy of admin people who may or may not be on vacation, etc. Compare that with a smart contract where a sub says they did something, a general verifies it, and the money is automatically distributed by the bank.

People are getting way too hung up on the disputes part of this. If a sub really doesn't install the toilet but gets paid anyway because of some accident, it's not like you don't have the same legal remedies. This is all about speed and efficiency.

>>8262399
>People are getting way too hung up on the disputes part of this.
prolly because of muh code is law that's spouted again and again by people permabullish on sc platforms who can only think superficially

>>8262399
>This is all about speed and efficiency.
but the speed and efficient are just from it being a program; a program doesn't need to live on the blockchain it can live on a single computer where computational be independently verified by a network of computers and dont cost sums of money to be computers. the fact is smart contracts are much much less efficient than a regular program and their only purported use is to write "contracts as code," however you're proposing there's no value in that

if smart contracts cant solve the dispute problem there is no point in them existing apart from novelty apps.

>>8262462
>; a program doesn't need to live on the blockchain it can live on a single computer where computational be independently verified by a network of computers and dont cost sums of money to be computers
this sentence fell apart. i meant "a program doesn't need to live on the blockchain it can live on a single computer where computations dont need to be independently verified by a network of computers and dont cost sums of money to run"

>>8262487
But would that be trustless? Do you think decentralization matters or not? That's what it boils down to.

>>8262530
if the court system mediates disputes its not decentralized at all, that's the point.

>>8262462
>>8262569
Why not both? A smart contract can su substantially lower the likelihood of disputes requiring court intervention. But court remains an option for the edge cases.

>>8262630
see
>>8261632

>>8262640
See
>>8262399
A system that increases efficiency while reducing disputes adds value. It doesn't have to completely eliminate disputes to valuable.

>>8262706
we shall see

>>8261539
maybe if one labelled the products delivered, with something working like a barcode, one would be able verify specific products and rate them from 1-10, and then pay 1 dollar for 1/10 and 10 dollar for 10/10

thing is... link is much different from regular scamcoins...
link is being run by a genius.. with crazy partnerships...
think about it.. sergey has been running a successful company... 32M raised at ico...
this is an opportunity to get on the ground floor...
i honestly feel bad for people who aren't holding link... in a few years.... we will make it... and it will be something the likes of which the world has never seen... honestly.. im enjoying this ride and im proud to be a link marine....
for the doubters.. or the haters...
just know... we dont care... we know the value of link and trust sergey.... this is the type of investment we will look back on in 30 years and thank ourselves.... trust me on this.......

>>8262752
a simple example of a valid usecase, is renting movies. where small amounts worth of a currency, is paid for, every nano second.

>>8261968
blockchain + uber + self driving cars = a car driving 24/7, paying for gas with the currency recieved from customers, at the gas station where the station pays with said currency to a self driving truck unloading the gas, where the truck pays and so on.

>>8257984
What I think this motherfucker tries to argue is when there is no objective, deterministic outcome, smartcontracts are useless.

This is true to some degree for current conditions. This particularly applies to civil engineering consulting and construction contractors (my industry) where you clearly need qualified person to declare that job was finished to whatever standard that has been agreed. However, even such industry that always reluctant to innovation, with advances of BIM (Building Information Modelling), laser scanning and drone inspection, you have digital data that can be assessed by AI algorithms and vuala, 30% of this industry contracts can now be truatless.

Damn it feels good that there so many ignorant people here.

>>8257767
>Some soylent drinking fag buying his wife a BBC dildo with Litecoin isn't adoption.

Top kek

> make smart contract
> It's hacked and you lost everything

>>8258101
The point is to ignore the government

Nice discussion ITT.

The naysayers seem to be turned off by the unbridled optimism of the linkies. There are legitimate concerns around disputes, digitisation of data etc.

But it looks like they concede that smart contracts have some value.

t. 20k linkie

>>8262462
This is the core problem, yeah. I'd wager most high-value contracts aren't acceptable to be undisputable. And the thing is you don't need extensive programming capabilities to describe such contracts, basic tools such as multisig wallets and oracles are enough and even preferable for any real money. There's very limited reason to execute actual code inside the contract, trusted and semi-trusted oracles are desired to do that instead. You can have as many oracles as your level of decentralization requires, there's no need for neither programmability nor decentralized data fetching in but the most niche cases imaginable. It's gonna be a big gamble whether these kinda products turn profitable, and ETH price especially is hilariously out of proportion.

>>8259923
> own private blockchains that they can rollback when agreed upon
>private blockchain

>>8257782
Nano is hard capped at 133m and is not owned or developed by any company you uninformed chinkcoin-owning nigger

>>8263993
>describes the equivalent of people who got into BTC at 17k
>doesn't even address the issue
>but anon posted something negative about a thing I don't like with a picture of himself, better repost it

>>8264368
What do you mean?