Hacker News Reader

Comment by lbradstreet | Hacker News Reader

I'm not a huge proponent on smart contracts, and I agree that it's a big problem enforcing payback, but that's no worse than regular loans. At least the ownership/transfership and payback of loans could be tracked, which is a far cry from the current method of debt ownership. It's extremely common for spreadsheets full of loans to be passed from owner to owner with no real ownership trail, accounting, etc, which I find disgusting.

Often fighting these loans is as simple as asking the owner to show proof of the loans in court, at which point they often evaporate, however it can be a long winding road to get there and often people just don't show up in court, or don't know, and get judgements against them that they might not otherwise owe. If the debt status was easily verifiable, it would be better for all sides (other than the bad actors) when it ends up in court.

View on HN

> but that's no worse than regular loans

If the blockchain isn't enforcing payback, then it's just a normal transfer of money from one party to another. There's no smart contract needed.

You still need to be able to transfer the loan from party to party, and allow parties to prove ownership of the loan. That's not a complex contract obviously, but it's important.

OK, that makes sense. Just using it as a ledger for a blob of text about the loan

it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways. It doesn't have to be a zero or 1 proposition. It's like saying cloud is not needed because we can do it on the desktop

> it's not needed, but transfers using smart contracts could be more convenient than in other ways.

Can you provide an example of this?

ok, so say I need to distribute payments. If I transfer money to a wallet and then a smart contract automatically takes care of sending the right amounts to the right wallets, it could be more convenient than current payment distribution solutions, no?

I think that's a poor example for the following reasons;

* if it's a one off payment to all recipients, why not just send it manually? * what happens when you need to add or remove recipients? Compared to just phoning up the bank to amend a standing order. * what happens if you accidentally pay someone the wrong amount? * what happens if you lose your wallet and you can't continue paying?

I would rather have a bank handle all of the edge cases and provide the consumer protections I want out of a payments/account system than some random script that I (or someone I have to pay) has to maintain that could be responsible for vast amounts of funds.

Sure, you can use the bank. Internally, the bank could do this on the chain though and give you all those protections, so you don't even need to do know the details

But why would the bank use the chain, the financial web of trust is already there and doesn't need to use a chain to facilitate internal or external transfers of monies. It would be a huge time sink with no real benefit to the consumer or the shareholders.

And yet banks are experimenting with blockchains, no?

They do, it's just that the way they do that has nothing to do with ETH or BTC http://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-di...

Say this smart contract is aware of interest rates, and due dates, and minimum payments, ... and it will prioritize payments according to interest rate?

I wrote a program to help me do this with my student loans, that does sound useful.

But a loan documented on the blockchain is just as assignable as one documented on paper, and a lender has no more incentive to agree to a clause prohibiting off-chain assignment than a clause prohibiting assignment without the borrower's knowledge or consent.

On the face of it, the lender has no more incentive, but having an unforgeable trail of ownership and payment may improve the value of the loan as it passes from hand to hand.

That all said, a blockchain is not really required. Better standards and a trusted third party would do fine.

Provenance is one of the 3 cases he recognizes in the opening section. Isn't the problem you describe provenance? His loan discussion focuses moreso on them being zero risk. Risk in loans is a feature, otherwise there's no point to paying interest and thus no point to the transaction.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com