Nostr Web Client

I will also say, this same argument, when generalized brings into question the whole concept of digital contracts as workable at all. The idea of self-executing contracts that can be used to revolutionize everything from property titles to equities trading. But any sane workable system is going to rely on truth oracles that have some social component to deal with disputes. And if that’s true, then we’re probably right back in good old regular law courts.

At which point, the question just immediately needs to be asked: why do we have these digital contracts in the first place?

I actually think this is a completely fatal blow to the entire idea of Web3. The intractable problem is staring you in the face, if you do some philosophical exploration of the people. nostr:note1np9663690xy42xlh6ec9pa9mjxxttsa5ue6retld7ckc58lnfzgqw93ejf

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

ynniv 1y ago

This is why the only reasonable use for blockchains is a fungible cryptocurrency: the chain can only provide consensus, and the only meaningful value of a coin can be the global desire for fractional ownership of the whole system.

If you try to add special meaning to specific tokens, that needs to be enforced both in code and law. This favors those who control the software over other participants, and ultimately relinquishes sovereignty to whichever State the effect is supposed to happen in. Once control has been ceded to the State it becomes obvious that the blockchain provides no value beyond a simple Merkle tree, and since the State is the only real sovereign actor, they'll prefer to use a database that they have full control over.

#OnlyBitcoin