Topic: Are non-monetary, open blockchains a thing? (Read 148 times)

Yes, I think overall, you are not wrong. Monetary incentives are used to keep the system intact. And this works pretty well in a lot of cases. But in most, if not all of those cases, the reason it works is because what makes monetary incentives work is the fact, that they are used to secure monetary value. Meaning, if you screw with the system, you lose the money you've put into.

This becomes a whole different story if you introduce non-monetary elements into the mix, because they can't be easily measured. For example, you write the proof of existence of a contract between two parties into the blockchain. This is information is pretty much worthless for everyone except the involved parties. And what if for one party, the existence, or rather non-existence of this proof of existence is so valuable, that they are willing to dump millions of $$$ into destroying it?

Monetary incentives only go so far. For some, $10,000 is a huge sum of money, for others, it is pocket change. Securing a global network based on something like this alone will work most of the time if all there is to gain is making others lose money, too. But as I tried to point out above, once you get other information in the mix, you might get yourself in trouble, because the alignments aren't so clear anymore.
   This itself might be reason enough to separate pure value based Blockchains such as Bitcoin and concepts like smart contracts, blockchain as a service and so on.

Now, back to the question, what can we take as a security instead of money? What I am thinking of is basically showing goodwill: you secure the network for a certain amount of time and in exchange, you earn the right to make a transaction (or rather a interaction). As I wrote before, things will be more complicated than that, but that is the main idea: You securing the network earns you the right to use it.

This will be good if it happens but I think the money related motivating force for verification of-work is practically imperative for the security of a blockchain arrange which a non-fiscal blockchain does not have. I am additionally intrigued to perceive how other blockchain activities will deal with these issues of security without the money related angle.

Nope.

First of all, it has a token which serves as a currency, no matter what people might call it.

EOS is not fully decentralized. It does not let anybody fully participate. It is not fully censorship resistant. You are at the mercy of 21 Block producers.

It is also an oligarchy, in which the people who have more are able to decide more. One of the main reasons of having a non-monetary blockchain is to prevent exactly that.

At best, you can say that EOS is a private blockchain with a public outlet.

I personally think EOS is junk. It is the antithesis of what blockchain is supposed to be.

I was a big proponent of the DPoS system as a general concept, but looking at Lisk, I see big problems in the political part of the system. I still like projects like SHIFT and Adamant also looks kinda interesting, but they may face similar problems once they get more popular.


As for the others, they all still have some token/coin with a value pegged to them. I have the feeling that this token/coin hinders adoption in multiple ways.

a) It makes it hard to interact with the blockchain. the_zhang_wei* is on to something here: if you have to buy BTC, then go to some shady exchange, get the token and then can interact with a system which, for the average user, is slower and clunckier than other systems, nobody is going to use it.

b) The fact that your coin might be worth double of what it is worth today makes users hesitant to use it. While speculation may be a great tool to get people interested and a great thing to have for systems focussing on being actual money, it is a big problem for utility tokens and coupon style solutions.

A non-monetary blockchain would still need some type of input, maybe even PoW, so users will have to pay somehow for the service they are using, but the fact that this is not connected to a tangible token, which can be traded, shuts off a whole slew of problems you would normally face.

I can imagine a hybrid version, in which a backbone-chain is maintained by a monetary system (or something existing, like ETH or BTC is used), but the main action happens on a non-monetary system.


Thread reference:
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/idea-about-a-new-blockchain-4100004

Sorry if I am missing something but doesn't EOS meet this description?

It doesn't charge fees/gas to interact with the blockchain so it's non-monetary in that sense. However, in order to protect the network from DDos etc, you can only use the proportion of the network that the number of tokens you hold entitles you to.

Steem / bitshares are similar too, in terms of social network/DEX focus rather than currency per se

Well, not exactly. In fact, one of the reasons why Ethereum exists is because it provides utility beyond purely monetary use cases. Granted, things like Tokens and Cryptokitties have a value, but there is other use cases as well. People like to talk about identity on the blockchain, land registry on the blockchain and so on. These are not directly monetary use cases.

Something like a decentralized, censorship resistant social network, or a messaging service could also be interesting.

Now, most, if not all of these systems require a type of cryptocurrency to have some tangible, real-world value, that people are putting on the line. If you want to screw the system, you'll pay the price, either by losing your tokens or by wasting a lot of expensive electricity.

This is the crux of a non-monetary blockchain: you need something to sanction bad behavior. And this is why until now, all blockchains have either some monetary incentive to play by the rules or are private and not open to everyone.

What I am thinking about is a system which incentivises people to play by the rules by paying up front, in the form of providing infrastructure. Basically, you serve as a node for a given time, there's proofs involved that you are really storing the blockchain and that you are providing infrastructure for the system as a whole. This pretty much buys you the right to actively use the blockchain.

Now, obviously it's all more complicated than that, but that's the start.

It would be nice if blockchain would be used for a non-monetary purpose but isn't this contradicting? Blockchain and cryptocurrency are linked with each other, or is it not? am i missing something? Can someone please enlighten me?

Would be following this thread, in case there would be a non-monetary project would rise. Thanks!

I think the monetary incentive for proof-of-work is pretty much important for the security of a blockchain network which a non-monetary blockchain does not have. I am also interested to see how other blockchain projects will handle this issues of security without the monetary aspect.

I've been thinking about this a bit now. I am aware of projects like Hyperledger, but all non-monetary blockchains I know of are private, because they obviously are vulnerable.

In classic blockchains, the monetary part is extremely important to support network security; messing with the blockchain is extremely expensive.

Private blockchains solve this problem by only allowing certain actors to write blocks. Bad actors can therefore be identified and shut out.

I think there are ways to make non-monetary, open blockchains work. I haven't come around to writing my ideas down, but with some luck, I'll have some time in the next months.

What I would like to know is, are there other projects working on something like this?