Topic: [ANN][RMC]Ride My Car / Ride Share / Carpooling - page 22. (Read 32058 times)

They could build an nfc reader into the frame itself. And then I guess some kind of lock contraption built into the bike itself. But this is just going wayyy too far.

Is it viable to attach a connected 'lock' to a bike?  The world is losing it's sanity ..

The issue I have with the smart contract malarkey is the 'unlimited' scope which it attempts to fill. It's still early days yet, I don't think i'm quite at the level of installing some IoT connected device to my car to control it's locks. There's just too much that can go wrong, and the complexity is such that you can't just open up and inspect the mechanicals to see whats wrong. It's actual code. In the case of ETH, it was a combination of the smart contract code, and the actual EVM itself.

With RMC, i really hope it's not the case of doing absolutely everything via contracts. Better to build in functions through iteration, expand the scope of operation through rigorous testing.

Smart contracts are not mature. It was an intentional decision by Satoshi to not build a turing complete system into Bitcoin, and I believe that ETH and their EVM are still many disasters away from being reliable enough to used by mainstream businesses.

I'm not sure what applications would be relevant here, but I did like the slock.it idea, its just a shame their funding rested on the DAO which we all know turned out to be a very bad idea.

Uni-directional contracts are a lot easier to handle, if you rent a car or bike, there is less risk in spending time with a complete stranger.

Slock.it had a really decent idea going with using IoT to lock and unlock things. This would be the equivalent of the DriveNow car rental business cept the contracts are negotiated over the chain.

Man I have like 3 bikes just sitting in the garage. Give me bike rental PLEASE.

I like the idea of car, bike rental, I think we can safely assume that there will inevitably kyc but lets just leave it there. It's not that bad a thing. People who want to use it will verify, the wider population doesn't even care that much.. it's just the crypto people who are mostly anarchists who don't believe in KYC.

Providing your id and other forms of verification doesn't mean that they fall into the hands of the government, quite the opposite. It is suppose to be a first barrier to deter criminals from gaming the system. Potentially committing some heinous crimes. I know some people who just don't use taxi's because they simply don't trust getting into a strangers car, even if it's a taxi car, with tax license displayed.

The government probably already has all of your info anyway, I don't know why it bothers you so much to provide a little bit of info in your own best interests.

I'd rather use my cash and wave down a taxi in the street.. No government is gonna get all that info from me.

If crypto is to reach mainstream adoption, regulation is a necessity. This means basically complying to KYC and AML checks. The good thing is, if you have nothing to hide, then the whole experience shouldn't really differ and on top of that, in the event of some heinous situations, your ass is saved.

When it comes to interacting with real world people who you don't know, kyc is absolutely essential. How you go about it isn't as important as having some compliance in place.

Identify theft could be solved with more than one form of verification. Like a utility bill, bank statement that kind of thing.

You've raised some good points here. I think these will probably be tackled gradually one by one but definitely questions that will need answering.

There's always going to be a divide on AML and KYC but I think that's just a hindrance to actual progress made.

As far as governments are concerned, if you're using their money (fiat) then you are a participant in a wider economy which simply doesn't advocate malicious or criminal activity.

I feel safer knowing that my bank deposits are insured up to a certain number, and for me to give up my anonymity to enjoy being part of the wider economy is an accepted drawback.

Come to think of it, I don't even think it's a drawback.

For ride sharing, I can think of a few problems when trying to link a user id to a car.

1. The user doesn't have to actually own the car which they drive. Plenty of legitimate reasons why users may drive cars in a different persons name. You can't red flag accounts because of that.

2. Identity theft - given the above flexibility of who can drive a car, how can you then be certain that the account isn't verified using stolen identity?

3. KYC would as a result require even more information such as bank statements, utility bill statements. Taking the whole verification process further.

4. Passengers - What is to stop criminals from getting away with crimes whilst on these journeys? Without verifying all accounts with the same tenacity, the accountability would only be half complete.

The information doesn't necessarily have to be publically available, the point is that in order to provide ride services, you do have to verify yourself. Obviously people can get round this too, but it does set a slightly higher entry barrier.

I would actually pay the price for having freedom of my finances. And to some extent, that's come true. On the other hand, knowing my luck, i'll be the one guy that hops into a ride and is never seen again.

Why are people so hesitant about giving a few bits of information out? If you have nothing to hide, then what's better than having authorities with real power help you when things go wrong? What if the authorities were able to track down the hackers of Bfx and instead you could either 'vote' for anonymity with the price being all your money potentially lost, or go with the regulated approach and have all your money back? I'm with the latter.

Too much time is spent on trying to change models of governance when really they benefit just a few criminals. For the majority of users - and it happens that those using rmc will probably be the minority because of their crypto background, they would rather have assurances from 3rd parties and authorities that at least someone is held accountable.

heh, the connected future - Improved efficiency, every kind of service at your fingertips, blockchain hackers working for the government harvesting and collecting all kinds of data. I'm with the anonymity camp here, anarchists unite!