Topic: Valid uses cases for Smart Contracts, Dapps, and DAOs? - page 3. (Read 4693 times)

You are referring to my post at this link.

1. I didn't complain about not getting larger blocks. Someone else did and I was responding to their erroneous assertion that Blockstream is against larger blocks.

2. I am making the point that Bitcoin can't be scaled up for higher transaction rates without being centralized. Others have argued that Lightning Networks can scale up transaction rate off chain with smaller blocks, but they are mistaken.

3. Actually "larger" blocks do not force centralization if you have the correct design which I have devised, but Satohi's design can't achieve it.

A friendly warning to you. I am much more expert than you apparently realize.

lol, you complain about centralization and in the same sentence complain about not getting bigger blocks. That's a contradiction because bigger blocks cause even more centralization.
Your views are invalid.

My quoted link explains that it is just an illusion of decentralization. It is by now already centralized, as evident by China+Blockstream making the decision to kill XT and Classic (i.e. a form of 51% attack control).

I would say it's still decentral but there is a trend to less decentralisation, that is true. Sadly that's an issue not many seem to care about.
It was even suggested to raise the blocksize when it was clear that would lead to even faster centralisation.

imnotback, what are you talking about?

Steemit is free to join, they give you free steem to join, and you can only make more money by posting and upvoting. oh, yeah, and they pay the girls we know, to go wild!

Bitcoin is not decentralized, as it is controlled by the Chinese mining cartel + Blockstream.

Yet Bitcoin has value.

Fiat money is not decentralized, yet it has value.

Women's lib:

https://steemit.com/active/girlsgonesteem-nsfw

Now, thanks to blockchain tech, women make more money on average than men!

The challenge is creating a system capable of identifying what contributions are needed and
their relative worth in a way that can scale to an unbounded number of people.

A proven system for evaluating and rewarding contributions is the free market. The free
market can be viewed as a single community where everyone trades with one another and
rewards are allocated by profit and loss. The market system rewards those who provide
value to others and punishes those who consume more value than they produce. The free
market supports many different currencies and money is simply a commodity that
everyone finds easy to exchange.

Since the free market is a proven system, it is tempting to try to create a free-market system
where content consumers directly pay content producers. However, direct payment is
inefficient and not really viable for content creation and curation. The value of most
content is so low relative to the cognitive, financial, and opportunity costs associated with
making a payment that few readers choose to tip. The abundance of free alternatives means
that enforcing a ‘paywall’ will drive readers elsewhere. There have been several attempts to
implement per-article micropayments from readers to authors, but none have become
widespread.

Steem is designed to enable effective micropayments for all kinds of contribution by
changing the economic equation. Readers no longer have to decide whether or not they
want to pay someone from their own pocket, instead they can vote content up or down and
Steem will use their votes to determine individual rewards. This means that people are given
a familiar and widely used interface and no longer face the cognitive, financial, and
opportunity costs associated traditional micropayment and tipping platforms.

btc would be worth nothing if it wasn't decentralised. I have no idea why a distributed network should have any value at all.
If it's not decentral it doesn't have any more value than a facebook-token.

There are few blockchain use cases (mostly revolving around finance or registries or anon).

EVERYTHING not anon is better centralized...
And the market for anon is tops 5% of the global economy (mostly grey markets).

But nobody cares about the specifics...
Just show me the next bubble... with a cool whitepaper... and excellent buzzwords.

The Bitcoin bull run is going to spawn a new orgy of ICO scams.

Although Silbert is excited about Ethereum, he does not agree with the vision held by some of Ethereum’s most-ardent supporters. He explained:

    “I sense there’s a certain utopian view of society, which I may or may not agree with philosophically, that I just don’t see from a real-world application perspective happening anytime soon.”

Silbert went on to explain that a world where there is no regulation, lawyers, contracts, or SEC rules is not going to exist in the near future. He then clarified, “It may solve some problems. The idea of a decentralized autonomous organization, it’s super interesting.”

Silbert also noted that many of the earliest applications built on Ethereum are related to gambling, Ponzi schemes, or pyramid schemes, but he also admitted that this isn’t necessarily a problem. He added, “That’s OK because that’s an interesting way to experiment; it’s certainly what happened with Bitcoin.”

What Does the World Need from Ethereum?

One of the main criticisms of Ethereum up to this point has been the lack of useful applications that solve real-world problems. On a recent episode of Unconfirmed Transactions, host Dan Anderson and Wall Street veteran Tone Vays described how Ethereum supporters were unable to provide any use cases for the project to them at a recent meetup in New York.

During his panel appearance on day one of Consensus 2016, Silbert seemed sympathetic to the idea that practical applications of Ethereum are yet to be found. He stated: “I don’t think the world needs a decentralized Uber, which is one project. I don’t think the world needs a decentralized AirBnb, which is another project.”

Having said that, it’s important to remember that Ethereum is a platform on which a developer is essentially given the power to build any decentralized application they wish. It’s possible the best use cases of Ethereum have simply not been thought of at this point.

During his final comments on DAOs, Silbert questioned the role these decentralized organizations can play in the real world. He concluded:

     “These DAOs that are raising money from the masses with — basically it’s a blank check. It’s a pool of capital that’s going to be deployed in a way that I think will be very democratic. I’m skeptical because I don’t know the role it needs to play in society. I don’t know, in the capital formation process, what’s wrong with our current system that it’s solving for. I’m philosophically supportive. I hope it’s successful, but I don’t see the problem it’s solving yet.”

Please do. You could win a nobel-prize with it.

I can fix that.

The thing with smart contracts is that they bloat up the chain really fast and once the chain is really big the node-count collapses and the coin stops being decentral. So to make smart contract viable you'd need new technology for compressing data and that's not happening currently.

Buy and sell ads are very popular.

Unlike Craigslist, the idea is to add some reputation and escrow, to make it more reliable.

Having many different websites, each with different reputation schemes, is not as efficient.

Yeah I guess illegal products will be listed. But the government can't prosecute the decentralized block chain. It will have to go after the users who avail of those products.

So some dope-dealers on a tiny black market is your "massadoption", huh?

gustav, I think OpenBazaar may be a valid wide adoption use case, and off the top of my head (without thinking deeply about it), appears we need the block chain to validate each state transition around transactions and listings, so that rules about reputation are enforced and validated by the block chain. Otherwise, the criticisms I levied against CounterParty will seem to apply to OpenBazaar.

I do agree those investing in the smart block chain schemes aren't really interesting in mass adoption. They want get-rich-quick money pooling schemes.