It is easy to set a time frame within which the funds are not distributed, and the donator can reclaim them back. I think that in this specific case, it boils down to whether the developer of the smart contract knows what they are doing, and acting in good faith. Fortunately, the opensource nature of smart contract allows anyone to double check the quality of a contract.
On the other hand, you have a strong point. Not everyone has the time, motivation, and knowledge to check whether a contract has the correct functionalities. The platforms and tools acting as intermediates are rare, not mature enough, and often straight scammy for now.
I 100% agree with you. Thank you for sharing a piece of thought that is so often overlooked.
This is a very tricky world we are in.
One grievance I have against traditional finances especially, is its inflexibility. Say that you want to fairly share a donation, or even a tip between two individuals.
With current system, they need to either build their company, or at least be contractors in the same country. One receives the funds, and splits it with the other, by the means of expenses and invoices.
If they fail to do so, it ends up in court.
The whole thing takes time and money. And we need to be sure that they are in the same country, bonded by the same laws.
With cryptocurrencies, someone makes a donation in ETH, and in a matter of minutes, both individuals receive their share with 100% certainty the share has not been modified. Agent A could be in Venezuela for what I care, while agent B is Australian. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter.
I concur this is a very specific problem, but one of those reasons why smart contracts shouldn't be discarded as a whole.
I don't really understand your point. The scope of this conversation is not about cloud shopping, but trying to find the middle ground in trust-less environments. This is why I specified that this is an oversimplification, and not a real world example.
Take IPFS for example https://www.scaleway.com/en/blog/ipfs-the-real-web3-explained/
The data on the network can not be modified and tampered with, and nothing is encrypted. This answers the problem of "questionable content". You are not responsible of its uptime, and you are not even required to host the data yourself.
I get your point, I agree to some extent.
I don't know much about MMO, but given your example of in-game situations, there are cases of moderators/admin treating you unfairly because of a misunderstanding, or because they "don't like you". Or other cases where you are locked out of a MMO because you were flagged as an abuser, and you need to jump hoops, to prove yourself, and get your account unfrozen.
So I would argue that in this case, nothing is bulletproof of "bugs" or "abuse", and it is not a black or white situation.
However, it is true that we need a balance between automatic system parsing bazingas of datas everyday, and humans having authority on the outcome, when needed. Harder to know where to draw the line.
I see.
So I think the take out of your comment, is that this is possible in very, VERY specific conditions, that would work in tiny scenarios where the outcome is simple (the data on the cloud must not contain a set of word, as one condition). But as soon as we hit something slightly more complex, it becomes prone to loopholes.
This is very instructive, thank you.
Yeah and the problem is, the real world kinda doesnβt care. Code gives zero fucks. If I have to be 250% sure the code is correct because no court can fix it if we screw up thatβs just not worth it to me
Fair point, the advantages are not worth the struggle of triple checking everything and ensuring there is no bug.
Iβd rather trust in unbiased humans
This is my personal opinion, but I disagree on this one. I'd rather choose a well written, unbiased piece of code, over a human that cannot be unbiased.
Regarding your second point, this becomes tricky when both parties are from different countries, for starters. Smart contract would be fast, and impartial in this case.
But for your first point, this is a very legitimate concern. The entry point of those ecosystems is complex, tech-savy, and poorly regulated. I understand why it is never the first option.
This may be overkill, but this is the point of a trust-less environment. Both parties ought to be extremely careful of what they sign, I agree.
Do you have examples of an escrow in this scenario? Smart contracts are opensource and can be deployed by anyone, like for example one of the two individuals aforementioned. This is the advantage I see in this case.
I am not trying to start an argument, only looking forward finding a proper solution.
Yes, decentralized bot would be more accurate. As in it can not be put offline.
As a foreword, yes I am very aware of resources like https://web3isgoinggreat.com You don't need to spam the comments with the link.
I am not asking about your general opinions on why crypto kittens is a jerk fest for crypto bros. Please cut the automatic generic rant on why cryptocurrencies is the sandbox of brainless dopamine monkeys. I am asking about your sentiment on a specific scenario, that tries to solve a real problem.
This is just an example, for oversimplification. In a trust-less environment, one person shares some of their cloud space for a fixed amount of time, with another person they don't know much.
The person asking for the cloud space, promises that they will use it only for X,Y or Z. They both agree to leave all the data in clear text (it is easy to prove whether there has been a breach of trust). If the person doesn't respect their engagement, they must be penalized. In this scenario, there is no legal tool to ensure this.
Enters the smart contract. The individual asking for a share of the cloud space, deposits a certain amount of ETH in a smart contract. The smart contract itself ensures that the owner of the cloud space will NEVER have access to the deposit fund. Both individuals sign the smart contract. After a fixed amount of time, the depositor can retrieve their deposit back. However, if for somewhat reason the depositor breaks their engagement (and do something outside X,Y, Z), the person sharing their cloud space can refuse the refund of the deposit. Both individuals must then reach a consensus, or the deposit will stay frozen on the smart contract forever.
In this case, would the use of a smart contract be a reasonable solution to you?
Some cats hate it. Some cats don't mind if you don't show any aggressivity. I have yet to see a cats that begs for belly rubs though.
I may be biased by a personal history of bad encounters in the workplace, but the way one can deck those hoards of pesky hiss mob with whatever falls under hand is CATHARTIC.
Hell yeah! Jesse is such a badass
Recently played Control. Had a blast!
This a very interesting approach.
But I wonder if everyone could answer it easily, because of the culture difference, media sources across the world etc.
An Asian might not guess something about content on US television for example.
Unless the question relates to a very universal topic, which would more likely be guessed by an AI then...
Thank you for the really informative demonstration.
Point taken.
On a side note, this is horrifying.
Akira
Fight Club
The Matrix
Eternal sunshine of the spotless mind
But I guess my firsty firstingly forever first is Blade Runner 2049
This is just an idea, but I see that some instance prevent bots from bypassing the registration step by asking unexpected questions like "are you human?". Apparently this is the type of question that can easily discern a human answer from a chatGPT answer. So what if the admin of an instance changed the question asked for registration application every few days? Something like " What did you hit for break f4st? " would give bot proof applications and the answers would likely give the admin a good laugh. Not 100% effective of course, but would help for the time being.