this post was submitted on 18 Aug 2023
541 points (95.2% liked)
Technology
58092 readers
2941 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related content.
- Be excellent to each another!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Approved Bots
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I thought the royalty payments were enforced by the contract?
Turns out that the smart contract is a post-it note stapled to the NFT and the marketplace can just ignore what the post-it note says because it's not legally binding.
What they can't do is trade with marketplaces that do enforce the contract. Originally it was enforced because if one marketplace stopped enforcing it the marketplace would be cut off from the Echo system but turns out that the 5 big marketplaces just need to agree to drop it and everything is fine.
Well that's just bad design, then.
There is no good design for this. The only design that works is external regulation and laws wich is why we use that for real things that aren't scams.
Nah the actual limitation is that providing people a way to transfer the token without paying a royalty is essential if you want to give people the option to freely transfer it between their wallets without selling it and paying a royalty. You could write a smart contract that does enforce this but then you would lose the ability to have that free transfer.
Why? It could be enforced in the same way that a BTC transaction is validated, just adding a rule that a wallet, specified as the author, should get a percentage of the trade.
You can easily end up with A gifting B a million and then B sending A the NFT for free, potentially with a trusted escrow service in between to make sure both of these actually happen. The NFT marketplaces are essentially already acting as escrow, so this isn't weird.
Only thing you could probably enforce is that moving something from one key to another requires a fee to be paid to the original artist, but that'd also trigger if A wants to move their assets to a different key (eg in or out of some hardware wallet, online wallet or marketplace). And if A and B trust each other strongly they can simply share the key.
Or they set up a multisig wallet, each creating one keypair directly on approved (tamper resistant) hardware wallet models, transfer it to the multisig wallet, and now control of the collection of multisig wallets means you control the token.
So now you trade it by trading the set of hardware wallets. Validated by each original participant including results from an audit of the key generation procedure with the hardware wallet.
No trace on the blockchain, and the trust model is more robust than simply taking the word for it as one of them share the private key claiming they did not keep their own copy.
The protocol doesn't support covenants like that in smart contracts. It has been discussed a lot but not implemented.
It gets complicated fast.
Because the second the rule becomes inconvenient there will be a fork or some kind of bullshit that removes the rule. This has already been done a couple of times when money got stolen from big investors. The thefts followed the rules set up on the blockchain and nothing in those transactions were different from a normal transaction but humans looked at them and said that they weren't valid and did whatever technical bullshit they needed to do to reverse them.
Apparently ultimately this involves hitting the person hiding the encryption keys with a $4 wrench until they provide the keys.
I know that reference.
I disagree, forks can be made but in reality nobody cares, 99.999% still follow the 'main' repo. Sometimes shit like that happens (looking at you, Buterik!), but that kinda misses the point that the validation is not implemented optimally.
I hope you are aware that you went from "this can't be broken" to "I trust that people wouldn't break it" to "sometimes they do break it but it's not that often" in a very short comment.
No, the nuance is in the number of people who confirm the change, they must be 50% +1.
So if 50%+1 of people decide that they don't want to pay artists they can just stop doing that. Sounds iron clad to me.
That's simply the way real decentralization works, I'm afraid.
No, that's the way the blockchain works. It's one way to do decentralisation, a very bad way based on property and absent of trust.
A much better way to do decentralisation is what you are currently participating in. Federation is based on trust and building communities, not cold maths dictating who owns a bunch of imaginary bullshit.
That's what I am fucking saying! You cant design around greedy fucks. Also this whole discussion I participated in the delusion that those 50% were individual people. We both know that they are not because there is nothing to identify individuals so the system is entirely decided by wealth so it isn't even decentralized. It's all just a scam that regularly collapses by design because that is how the rich people extract real money from it.
Royalties were not part of the original design.
No see it's a lot more sophisticated than that. The post-it note is immutable because of maths or something, so what that means is that it's capital-P Property. And because Property is a magic spell that binds even the old ones, and this spell is unbreakable, I own all these apes.
You have to see it in context and only makes sense for people who don't wholly trust companies and governments to do the right thing either.
This is vs. "immutable because it's in X company's database". Neither a database nor a blockchain can themselves enforce contracts.
Okay, I assume this comment is in defense of crypto contracts or whatever? This is solving a problem that doesn't exist.
I was exposed to many, many litigation cases in my time working in the legal system. The worst ones happen because contracts aren't made or are sloppily constructed. I have never, ever, in many years of seeing civil cases go through the office, seen a single example where the problem was that someone had falsified a contract or there was disagreement about what a contract actually says. Contracts change all the time, so making them immutable makes them less useful to both parties.
Also big companies break contracts all the time, and they don't get away with it by lying about the contents of the contract, they get away with it because they have all the money and all the power.
The same thing with money. Counterfeiting is a tiny problem with almost any currency. The real problem is theft, and the lawless, immutable nature of the blockchain renders theft absolute, with no recourse.
This is the problem with the blockchain in general - immutability solves a nonexistent problem and creates a much worse problem. The no-trust basis of the system attracts grifters because there is no way to take back a bad transaction. The only reason people believe it works is because they somehow believe that documenting transactions immutably will make them bind people, just like some sort of magic spell. That's just not how the world works.
Your comment seemed anti blockchain in general and so I was replying on that level not particularly about the contracts.
Your claims all make perfect sense if you think or current system is acceptable, with some billionaires and others that can't eat and police making sure it stays this way. The blockchain is about making the future better by enabling trustless transactions to occur without those things.
Current contracts are often held by corporarations and enforced by police. I'm a realistic person that believes climate scientists. I'm pretty sure if we have capitalism, corporations, and police (all things we need to enforce contracts) in 20 years it will be in a fascist, dystopian, ecological collapse context and I hope to not be around to experience it.
I'm much more interested in how to build a better world that doesn't need these authoritarian forces, and the blockchain is a technology useful in this endeavor. I don't claim that it is without flaw or can prevent crime.
What recourse would be available in the dollar system that doesn't mean somebody isn't paying to make another whole? If someone stole my cash, or stole from my bank because I lost my ATM, who is making me whole at 0 cost?"
Also immutable doesn't mean not able to be modified, it just means you can't modify the past (lie about what happened). If you want to change something, it's a forward change, with past states still visible.
You've said a lot of words but you still haven't explained how crypto actually solves these problems.
Once again: laws, including contract law and currency, aren't magic spells. They don't have power just because they exist. They require the power of a state to enforce them. Crypto is the same. Just because you're tracking transactions on a public immutable ledger doesn't change anything about that.
Now, as an anarchist, I'm not saying that to defend the current system. I am saying the solution is to remove the actual power of the state. Crypto is only attempting to replace tokens of state power, with no attempt to address the power itself.
And yes, I understand how you could in theory make changes to a contract with further ammendments, the thing is that costs transactions. There is no such thing as a modification based purely on consent of the parties. That is a serious problem for their usefulness, which was my actual point.
That's because it doesn't, it wasn't meant to. Crypto is not meant to be THE all-in-one solution that solves all of our problems. It solves a tiny subset of our problems, namely, how do we share a database without trusting each other. Other questions such as the enforcement of contracts is outside the scope of blockchain technology as it should be.
Right but again, that problem is not one that existed. The future is federation - communities working together based on trust, not finding novel ways to track who has & does not have resources.
It wastes a medium country's worth of emissions every day just to count coins or write things down, and it doesn't get used to liberate people it gets used for scams.
Nice, agree, though I'm of the opinion that the transition time will be significant as culture adapts, and until then, blockchain could help, especially between groups.
This depends on the specific chain/coin. As I understand Eth just made or is in the midst of a change that makes energy use hardly a concern. It's not like the dollar doesn't take any energy. Think about all the bank computer DBs etc in massive global datacenters, branch offices, and the people that need to manage them, etc.
Blockchain is a tool, nearly any tool can be used for cool things or shitty things. A database is fundamental type tool, and one that can run without need to trust others you don't know seems like it could be useful too. I'm anarchist but not under the impression that within my lifetime I would be able to trust someone on the other side of the world to not mess with a DB for profit (remember the transition time will be full of people who grew up in an exploitative world). I'm pretty sure the long-term anarchist future is like you said, federation, decentralization, etc. Within my group of 500 or so, sure, no need to track anything. Between groups, there may be some need. And enforcement would be along the lines of deciding not to work with those who demonstrate maliciousness.
btw, thanks for the civil intelligent conversation!
With ethereum, they've been promising this for a while. I believe they are talking about "proof of stake". The problem with this is of course that you need stake to begin with. This is effectively just capitalism. They explicitly say this in their language:
https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms/pos/
So that just reproduces the problem where you need money to be part of the ecosystem, and an ultra-wealthy bad-actor could easily undermine the system.
Now, as for the idea that any tool can be used for good or ill, I would say that's true of technology, but not tools. The actual implementation of any given technology affects how it will be used. This is what the saying, "When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail," is talking about. In media the saying is, "The medium is the message."
Similarly, you can't use nuclear weapons for anything good, at least not currently. There was a whole project called "operation plowshare" that tried to find good uses for these things. They just ended up creating a bunch of irradiated craters.
So cryptography is the technology, blockchain is the tool. My point is that if you understand what that tool does, and you look at how it gets used historically, it's pretty obvious that it's used for scams. Yes, there are promises that it could be used for better things in the future, but until it actually does so, there's no reason to believe it.
A good podcast about this is the Behind the Bastards episodes on crypto:
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-one-lets-talk-about-cryptocurrency-90181213/
https://www.iheart.com/podcast/105-behind-the-bastards-29236323/episode/part-two-lets-talk-about-cryptocurrency-90276347/
As for the transitional period where state power is being eroded and communities are being built, it might be true that you can't trust someone halfway around the world, individually. This is where I'm basically just brainstorming how I personally would suggest this problem be solved:
I would still rely on federation. For instance, as things stand right now, countries have trade agreements between one another, and those agreements don't work because of some outside police force, they work because those entities rely on one another. There is a level of trust, even though states are notoriously untrustworthy, they still know the level of trust is stable enough to make their currencies compatible and engage in trade.
If you're in a federated community that trades with other communities on a basis of mutual aid and trust, you could easily have a trade agreement from your federated communities with capitalist states. Then whatever mechanism you would use to negotiate requests internally, you just create a similar mechanism where you request an item that is for sale from a capitalist country, and the federation organises the sale externally. That insulates you from needing to trust anyone externally.
This would be what you would do if you absolutely had to, but I can also see why such communities would want to minimise their support for capitalist states. Ultimately the only reason such a state would have an agreement with a federated bloc of anarchist communities would be because they benefited somehow. I would say in such a world the downfall of such states is inevitable, but maybe it's the most peaceful way to manage such a transition. Ideally, you wouldn't trade in single transactions with people on the other side of the world. Most goods can be produced internally in any reasonably sized economy, and if you don't have cheap vs expensive labour, there's no reason most goods need to be imported. Currently we import clothing, for example, across oceans for absolutely no reason other than to exploit cheap labour. That's enormously wasteful in so many ways. I personally would far rather have a slower pace of consumption, and make industry more localised, than use crypto just for individual overseas purchases.
Oh and I'm happy to talk to anyone who is responsive to the points I'm making. If you weren't I wouldn't have spent this long talking to you :)
Are you familiar with Beau of the Fifth Column? He speaks of international relations as akin to "a poker game where everyone is cheating". Trade agreements work by relying on each other and I agree there is some level of trust but I'm pretty sure they still use documentation (blockchain is a form of trustless documentation), there are still contracts and threats of force. Between nations you arguably have anarchism as there is no higher power (unless you consider the EU/NATO etc, but that's more like a group of anarcho-bullies).
Not sure I understand the difference between tech and tools. I don't really think that ANY tool can be used for good or ill. I think that is true of most tools, but I see capitalism as a tool, but it's one that's only useful to a certain type of person and only useful to take advantage of others. I can see how you could see the blockchain the same way, especially based on it's historical use so far. But I don't think it's inherent in the blockchain tool like with capitalism. Blockchain to me is like money or any other tracking technology like a spreadsheet. Not things I want to see in my anarchist utopia (as money in any form facilitates resource hoarding) but things I see useful and 100% inherently evil for the time being.
Interesting. I have an uncommon or unpopular opinion here. I think that if real and lasting anarchism is ever gonna happen, it's going to have to happen globally simultaneously to some degree (and I think it's in-progress now). Global powers will have to all be degrading. I just don't see major countries allowing a significant anarchist region to exist, especially one like the U.S. that has nuclear weapons and a massive military. The remnants of NATO aren't going to just tolerate what to them are a bunch of yahoos with the world's best weapons. Also, I think anarchism only really makes sense globally. If any state, especially any capitalist state remains, they will destroy the world and pull us down with them.
Exactly, I see world trade as reduced, regularly eating a fruit that's ripe on the other side of the world just doesn't seem sustainable.
Maybe the tools/technology dichotomy isn't so clear, but I guess I'm talking about how technology is applied and how tools are designed. Like the difference between a wood axe and a polearm - both are built on the same fundamental principles of adding a sharpened metal object to the end of a wooden stick, but one of them is good for chopping wood and the other is good in battle. You could swap them around, but they'd be almost useless at one another's jobs. How they are designed dictates how they are used, and currency technologies are no different. They are a type of accounting, but they are built around lack of community. Debt the First 5000 Years by David Graeber is a great book on this topic, explaining the social origins of debt and how money really isn't such a big part of most of human history, only rising to its current form with the advent of imperialism and colonialism.
I guess my point with the blockchain thing is that even though I can see some use for keeping records in a decentralised way, I still don't see blockchain solving any real problems there. Again, if you need decentralisation you should base it on trust, and basically anything you do in that sphere you can do with simple authentication, which is a type of cryptography we've had for many decades now. If the outside world is using blockchain you could make a case for using it in a limited way when you absolutely have to, but I certainly wouldn't advocate for supporting blockchain.
Advocating for it on the basis of hypothetical future uses for it is basically falling afoul of the AM/FM distinction, AKA Actual Machines vs Fucking Magic. Actual machines exist and you can see their track record; fucking magic is whatever the scam artist sells it as. If the technology hasn't proven itself yet, then you can't make plans based on it.
My point about international relations was that "trust" works even in that cutthroat context. I love Beau btw, he's absolutely right about that point. Weirdly I think the first place I understood that concept was from reading Ice Station by Matthew Reilly, which is just the most trashy action novel you could imagine.
I agree that anarchism is slowly emerging everywhere, and that's kind of how it has to be. I imagine it as a smattered, regional emergence in disparate places, which once it passes a crucial tipping point it floods everywhere all at once. Like I think people would be shocked at how fast society can change once the systems of oppression crumble.
The question of nuclear war is a sobering one. It is in theory possible that one continent goes before another, and in that case perhaps a nuclear power might decide to attack with nuclear weapons. The only thing you could do in that case is say, "Well, our territory now contains nuclear weapons too, so MAD is still in effect." It's not a great answer, but it's the only one I can think of.
Been wanting to read this one, still on The Dawn Of Everything.
I like that, I'm particularly interested in how to prepare materially and culturally in an attempt to minimize the collateral damage.
Great talking to you comrade, you're seem a wise one.
Yeah, thanks for the talk, gave me some things to think about too :)
You’re thinking too rationally now. The thing with NFTs is that it’s not rational at all. Try again.
Basically the transfer function on an erc721 interface (nft) cannot have enforced royalty payment otherwise it wouldn't support people transferring the token outside of a sale. Theoretically you could use some kind of interface standard or write up a different contract where users are forced to pay a royalty on any kind of transfer but then there wouldn't be a way to transfer it without paying the royalty and basically no nft trading platforms would support it because under the hood you have to transfer them the token so they can sell it on your behalf once a buyer is found.
FYI not trying to shill funny pictures but I do know a bit of solidity so maybe someone here is actually curious about the limitation.
Thank you. This is what I wanted to know!