Anything that connects to the physical world makes little sense at the moment as it defeats the purpose of such a smart contract.
What you can do is anything that is related to moving ETH or ERC tokens/NFTs between addresses.
So an example that you see often is a Kickstarter type contract. This contract collects ETH from many sources over a period of time but will only pay out to the payout address if the minimum is reached in that time period. Otherwise all the funds are returned. This contract is fully autonomous and can be validated to do what it is supposed to do. You don't have to trust a single company like Kickstarter to follow the rules or not cancled your compain. The project being a scam or not compleeting is another story.
So in other words what you can do in a smart contract are financial constructs that are zero trust.
The reason many scams happen is also in part that people are not checking that the contracts are solid and prevent rug pulls etc.
I don’t understand the benefit of that… in the end, you have to trust the person you are sending the coins to to do what they say the will. This is true regardless of the smart contract. The only thing the smart contract does is guarantee that at least other people are also getting scammed.
Come to think of it, though, it doesn’t even guarantee that. The person who created the contract and will get the funds if the minimum is reached could always just send ETH from one of their other own accounts to trigger the threshold.
It makes sense for things that the contract can control.
If the contact enforces that when $tokenAmount is sent to $address, $asset is sent to $depositor.
If and when more things exist on the blockchain, and/or more physical institutions sign on to it, and/or more and more digital goods are worth transacting in such a fashion, then smart contracts will make more sense.
If neither of those materialize more tangibly than they do, it'll be hard to manufacture use cases for it, I think (though I am hardly an expert).
But considering the types of things that are already mostly digital, it seems like we have the _potential_ to lean into the latter case. Domain names, accounts, Github subscriptions, e-books, music, rights to watch movies / television shows, etc., those things could all be integrated into the blockchain and enforced via smart contracts easily.
Probably the best use case I've seen is stadium / conference tickets, but if we ever get to a phase where companies significantly adopt, we can do some interesting things, like communal ownership of assets. Ownership stake can be variable, depending on who is doing the most work. Profits could then conceivably be distributed among those who have earned it the most. "What to do next" could be a decision that is decided upon by a council of token-holders, for better or worse, and truly non-managerial workers could meaningfully participate in a company's decision-making, profit-sharing, etc.
Ok, let's take your example; concert tickets. You will still need to trust a central authority (the concert venue) to honor your ticket. Why not just let the concert venue own the whole thing?
tbf, it's not "my" idea, there are just a couple of NFT-based ticket sales startups that exist and I am aware of them.
The main benefit I would see from the venue's perspective is in both scalping prevention and achieving price equilibrium with less effort, because smart contracts can allow a rake to be collected on each resale of a ticket. Beyond that, while this use case doesn't appeal to me, I know of people who've collected scrapbooks of concert tickets, but the NFTs of the tickets are a collectible item (to whatever extent someone deems a digital asset "collectible") and can be potential collected in a digital scrapbook as either social proof or memoria.
That said, there's nothing in my view that mandates that the central authority doesn't own the whole thing. You can own the whole thing, either on your own token, or as a non-blockchain product altogether -- or not at all, but there are existing tools and technologies that allow for easier on-ramps than building it yourself and I think most venues don't particularly care what the technology is or that it's NFTs or that it's blockchain, so I don't know of any reason that a blockchain based offering couldn't find itself competitive in the marketplace unless their sales pitch is exclusively that.
> I don't know of any reason that a blockchain based offering couldn't find itself competitive in the marketplace
The main reason is that you have shown exactly zero reasons why anyone shold adopt it in a space that's already mostly solved the issue of selling tickets to people. You are teling people to create insane complexity just to solve the single case of selling a single ticket to a single person and pretend that's all there is. And telling people "but it's blockchain so it's good actually". That's not how this works, that's not how any of this works.
> And telling people "but it's blockchain so it's good actually"
I did literally the opposite of that when I said "I don't know of any reason that a blockchain based offering couldn't find itself competitive in the marketplace unless their sales pitch is exclusively that."
Restated, I am saying that "but it's blockchain so it's good actually" is not a viable sales pitch. All the rest of my comment are reasons that I think are pitchable features.
You seem to have imagined me saying something I didn't and are arguing against what you've imagined I said.
> I don't know of any reason that a blockchain based offering couldn't find itself competitive in the marketplace
So what are the reasons that a a blockchain based offering could be copetitive in the marketplace? And what would bockchain have to do with it?
Remember ,we're talking about tickets: a problem largely solved. Where a central authority you trust releases a ticket, and where the central authority you trust verifies the ticket at the venue.
So, what is the sales pitch for tickets for a blockchain-based ticketing startup? Other than, you know, "but it's blockchain!" (as all these startups do)
I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now.
From another comment you've made "I stopped making an effort [appreciating a pro-blockchain point of view] five-seven years ago for many obvious reasons," I won't bother to re-list them. If you aren't going to engage in good faith because you've imagined me to be a crypto-proponent, I'd appreciate it if you'd at least read what you're trying to argue with.
> I listed the benefits in my previous message that you have apparently not read now.
Oh, I have. None of those are tangibl benefits to either the venues or to the consumers. Or are not issues to begin with. All you propose is to build a tower of babel to kinda maybe solve minor issues.
I especially like this: " smart contracts can allow a rake to be collected on each resale of a ticket." Ah yeah, let's milk money for ever, and ever, and ever.
As to collectibel items and NFTs, you don't need NFTs to make collectible items. Especially considering how actual data for this bullshit is always invariably stored on a centralised server somewhere.
But sure. "Benefits".
That's one of the many reason why I stopped making an effort [appreciating a pro-blockchain point of view] five-seven years ago. Because all the bullshit that crypto absolutists come up with is so far removed from reality. And that's even for the simplest use cases like selling one ticket ot a single person for a single concert.
You have mistaken me for a crypto-absolutist, as well as your dismissals as real.
Resales already happen now, so your "money forever and ever" counter-argument isn't particularly persuasive, and if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now, and there exists a real solution for it.
"Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K"
Despite your imagining otherwise, there are undoubtedly non-blockchain solutions that can be built here to solve those real problems, but there are real solutions to them now that for whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously.
> if there are going to be resales, _of course_ the venue would prefer to get a commission. That is a real market problem now
There are so many things wrong with this.
1. You assume that as matter of indisputable fact that venues are absolutely entitled to a cut on any ticket resales, in perpetuity.
2. You assume that people reselling tickets (and venues not getting a cut) is a problem. It isn't, really. This is somewhat true for a very tiny number of very popular events, and even there there are ways to mitigate it. The hundreds of thousands of events that happen around the world that require the ticket don't have this "problem".
3. It's telling that you assume that it's the venues that have to get in on the cut. Not the concert organisers. Not the actual people in the event (artists, sports teams, presenters etc.)
4. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains it doesn't solve anything. You transfer a ticket to another person for free, and get the money for it in a different transaction. You transfer credentials for the wallet which bought the ticket to a person, you get money in a different transaction. Etc.
5. Of course, as with all "solutions" involving blockchains, this one exclusively focuses on a single issue (which is largely inexistent in the grand scheme of things) to cater to the simplest of all the cases (selling a single ticket to a single person). And all this "solution" does is: make it extremely complicated and complex, not really solving anything, and making other legitimate use cases even more extremely complex or impossible (because ticketing is much more than just selling a single ticket to a single person, even if it's the biggest use-case).
> "Tickets are a solved problem" rings as intuitively spoken as "nobody will ever need more than 640K"
This is observable reality. There are hundreds of thousands of events that require tickets around the world (probably even on any given day). You buy a ticket, you go in, done.
It is a solved problem.
> solve those real problems
You have to show that it's both a) a real problem, and that b) what you propose is an actual solution, not a "well, if you squint hard enough and ignore reality, it barely works for the simplest of cases, if at all"
> or whatever reason you refuse to entertain because the answer contains the words block and chain contiguously.
The only reason I refuse to entertain them is because you keep failing to show how it is a solution to anything. Given the list of issues I listed above that are immediately obvious to anyone with half a brain and a grasp on reality.
And yes, that is an issue with almost literally anything that has "block and chain contiguously".
> venues are absolutely entitled to a cut on any ticket resales
No I don't. Moreover, "in perpetuity" is a red herring.
> you assume people reselling tickets is a problem
No I don't. I perceive it as a problem venues are willing to pay to solve.
> It's telling that you assume that it's the venues that have to get in on the cut
Again, no I don't. Anyone on the supply side of this can negotiate this in. The tickets can originate from the artists, and then the organizers, and then the venues. Artists and venues can openly negotiate on this.
I've said before that you're imagining things I'm not, and halfway through your response, that's all you've done. I'm not going to bother to read or reply to the rest.
You can have hybrid smart contracts, that rely on oracles inserting real world data on chain (see Chainlink for example).
You could for instance have 5 independent oracles responsible for validating whether the concert happened or not. The "ticket" smart contract would release the money only if the 5 oracles agree it happened, or refund the buyers otherwise.
Chainlink is much more sophisticated than that and handle oracle reputation, cross chain oracle proof, conflict mitigation, etc.
> You can have hybrid smart contracts, that rely on oracles
So, trusting centralised data providers.
> You could for instance have 5 independent oracles responsible for validating whether the concert happened or not.
Ah yes. Because the ticket is validated after the concert has happened, and not, you know, at the entrance to the venue.
And also so many "coulda/woulda"s in your description of something that has already been solved and doesn't require mountains of compleiy on top of it. I mean, you can't reliably show how having a single ticket to a single concert would work better than the existing system. And that's the simplest thing that can happen to a ticket.
Seriously this blind anti-blockchain trend on HN makes any kind of rational discussion impossible.
Can we just stop this and act like engineers and actually _try_ to understand each other?
> So, trusting centralised data providers
Where did you understood that? Did you even read the comment you're replying to?
Chainlink (being just one example of an oracle protocol to illustrate the discussion), allows you to choose how many oracles you want, with whatever reputation constraint you want, strictly named or open ended, with or without whistleblowing/conflict mitigation algorithm, etc.
How does that deserves a snarky "So, trusting centralised data providers"?!
> Ah yes. Because the ticket is validated after the concert has happened, and not, you know, at the entrance to the venue.
There are multiple ways to handle this, a lot of future crypto contract implement something very similar to:
- The venue issues tickets that can be purchased through posting money to a smart contract.
- The smart contract locks in the money until, say, 5 oracles validate that the concert did happen.
- The venue can prove the locked in ticket sale amount as collateral to borrow money in preparation of the concert.
- The oracles validate that the concert happened, unlocking the sale money to the venue.
or
- The concert was a scam, oracles do not validate that it happened, thus ticket sales are refunded.
> something that has already been solved and doesn't require mountains of compleiy
My comment is not about the rationale or utility of the concert ticket example. It's about how that could be implemented with a smart contract.
> And also so many "coulda/woulda"s in your description
Chainlink is already used since multiple years to secure billions of dollars of pegged tokens, sport bet results, election results, insurance, etc.
> Can we just stop this and act like engineers and actually _try_ to understand each other?
This would be a great thing for blockchain proponents to start doing, yes. HN is littered with threads where people have spent hundreds of comments trying to get someone to explain how a blockchain is better than the status quo, and it always devolves to “I need to sell my random hashes”, usually with a side of “I have done no research into the domain I’m trying to sell into”.
Concert tickets are a great example. There are no widespread problems with tickets being sold for concerts which don’t happen and refunds being denied in violation of the terms of sale. Similarly, people don’t have any trouble paying for tickets since the existing options are cheap and safe. Those problems certainly aren’t large enough to warrant the additional cost and risk of using a blockchain.
The actual problem with concert tickets in the U.S. is that one company has exclusive contracts with most of the venues, their agents handle bookings for most popular bands, and they have a comfortable relationship with the company which controls radio play in much of the country. If you want to do anything in this space you need to understand that it’s not a technical problem, and explain what you’re doing differently which will succeed unlike the various failed attempts since the beginning of the web.
> Can we just stop this and act like engineers and actually _try_ to understand each other?
Let's do that. I only wish these blind crypto absolutists would actually look at real world from time to time.
> Where did you understood that?
From your statement: "You can have hybrid smart contracts, that rely on oracles inserting real world data on chain"
Oracles are always cenralised data providers that you trust. And for may, many, many applications there will be only a handful of them.
> There are multiple ways to handle this, a lot of future crypto contract implement something very similar to:
Again. None of these are much of an issue for existing systems. Have you been to a real concert in the real world lately? You buy a ticket, you go to a concert, done.
No need for "five oracles to validate that a concert happened". There are hundreds of thousands of concerts happening all around the world without this inanity. What exactly does blockchain bring into this equation? Or "smart" "contracts" (which are neither smart nor contracts)?
> It's about how that could be implemented with a smart contract.
Indeed. That's what I was addressing. You wanted to talk like real engineers trying to understand each other? So try to understand this: you are proposing a mountain of complexity to solve what is largely a non-issue.
Your entire description on how ticket sales happen have literally no basis in the real world. And that's on top of the fact that you completely ignore what the original comment (and then I) said: your ticket is issued by a trusted central authority, and then is validated at the entrance by a central trusted authority. What does blockchain bring into this euation except lots of "coulda shoulda oracles"?
Edit:
Even in the cryptoutopia world the "contract" for the ticket will of course be released by the central authority running the concerts, and you'll have to trust that they didn't screw up the programming. And no, "you can always check the contract" doesn't work since there are now multiple cases of these "smart" "contracts" passing multiple security audits and still having glaring holes in them. A human-readable cotract you have with the concert organizer can actually be audited by regular people, and is enforceable.
> Chainlink is already used since multiple years to secure billions of dollars of pegged tokens, sport bet results, election results, insurance, etc.
> that people are not checking that the contracts are solid
Ah yes. It's the people's fault that they don't check code in esoteric programming languages running on esoteric VMs using made up words for everything.
Yeah remember, you're supposed to upload your mind into the computer if you want to live in that kind of world. What will happen to you in the case of a fork? There will be two of you.
This is not true. Let me quote the UK's Head of Civil Justice:
6. The theory is to dispel the myth that blockchain is a fringe technology used only by those wanting to risk their livelihoods or possibly make their fortunes on volatile cryptoassets like Bitcoin.
7. The blockchain is now at a stage in its development equivalent to where the internet was in or around 1995. The internet was unstoppable in 1995 and blockchain technology is unstoppable now. It will become ubiquitous in all major industrial and financial sectors, simply because it allows for the immutable recording of data, thereby reducing friction in commercial and consumer transactions and obliterating the scope for dispute as to what has occurred.
8. As the Master of the Rolls and Head of Civil Justice in England and Wales, I hold an office that pre-dates modern trade in derivatives and reinsurance, even steam engines, powered flight, and certainly the internet. I am particularly and obviously concerned about the reputation and development of English law and the jurisdiction of England and Wales.
9. Many people do not realise that English law governs trading in €600 trillion of OTC derivatives annually, in €11.6 trillion in metals trading, in £250 billion in M&A deals, and in £80 billion in insurance contracts every year – just to take a few examples. My hope is that English law will prove to be the law of choice for borderless blockchain technology as its take up grows exponentially in the months and years to come.
This seems like a non-sequitor. It is not clear what you are disagreeing with or what point you are trying to make with that quote, besides that a top UK lawyer is pro-crypto.
I was responding to "Anything that connects to the physical world makes little sense at the moment as it defeats the purpose of such a smart contract."
That's why the judge's quote is relevant. They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts.
I'm simplifying slightly (see Ricardian Contracts if you want the detail).
> They don't see a distinction between regular contracts and smart contracts. It's all just contracts.
That is not some that any of those quotes states. The thrust of those quotes is focused on the value of the blockchain as an immutable ledger, and doesn't mention "smart contracts" once.
The statement you are trying to dispute seems to be pretty widely accepted. Once you need to refer to physical world events, you need yo trust some entity to report those events accurately, removing the trustless aspect of "smart contracts" that is their primary selling point.
The most you can read into the quotes that you posted is that the judge sees a strong future for the UK judiciary in resolving disputes about trust when "smart contracts" have to interact with the offline world.
I would also point out that "smart contracts" are not literally contracts, but pieces of trustless software. Conflating those concepts does nothing to help the uphill reputational battle that faces the cryptocurrency ecosystem given all of it's shenanigans.
I don’t think this makes the case that you are claiming. Smart contracts are not the equivalent legal contracts, it’s a very good word. As for #6, I think people are more interested in more complicated rug-pulls involving NFTs then just trading BTC.
What you can do is anything that is related to moving ETH or ERC tokens/NFTs between addresses.
So an example that you see often is a Kickstarter type contract. This contract collects ETH from many sources over a period of time but will only pay out to the payout address if the minimum is reached in that time period. Otherwise all the funds are returned. This contract is fully autonomous and can be validated to do what it is supposed to do. You don't have to trust a single company like Kickstarter to follow the rules or not cancled your compain. The project being a scam or not compleeting is another story.
So in other words what you can do in a smart contract are financial constructs that are zero trust.
The reason many scams happen is also in part that people are not checking that the contracts are solid and prevent rug pulls etc.