Hacker News Reader

Comment by leashless | Hacker News Reader

My current company, http://mattereum.com, is a smart contract legal services firm which focusses exactly on the problem of making smart contracts which transfer off-chain assets legally enforceable.

Real estate is a hard case, but by no means impossible, particularly if a custodian can hold the assets in the transaction. This approach is well understood.

Tokenization of these assets could make the resulting token a security. Licensing and regulations would then apply. We can help with that maze too.

View on HN

> Real estate is a hard case, but by no means impossible, particularly if a custodian can hold the assets in the transaction. This approach is well understood.

So perhaps we could use an entity that is experienced in holding real estate assets that have outstanding obligations against them... like a bank? And then, instead of using cryptocurrencies that burn more electricity to service my "tokenized-crypto-mortgage" on my house than my actual house, I could get a "traditional mortgage"!

Hold my beer, I'm going to issue an ICO for this idea.

Trust = money.

Do you think banks exist for free? What are the costs of maintaining a system of banks capable of acting as a trusted custodian in such a transaction, covering every jurisdiction the globe over? Have you amortized the cost of aircraft carriers, diplomats, social and class mobility, the set of externalities that ultimately end up reconciled through war and collapse?

We're trying to build a more stable system here. Cryptocurrencies are way cheaper in the long run. Some people have learned this the easy way, most will learn it the hard way.

> Do you think banks exist for free? What are the costs of maintaining a system of banks capable of acting as a trusted custodian in such a transaction, covering every jurisdiction the globe over? Have you amortized the cost of aircraft carriers, diplomats, social and class mobility, the set of externalities that ultimately end up reconciled through war and collapse?

Whew, thank god Bitcoin got rid of all the aircraft carriers. And class mobility, I was wondering how to solve income inequality, but who knew it was as simple as Blockchain! Blockchain! Blockchain!

Bitcoin doesn't solve systemic problems with the existing global financial order in a single step, so it must be worthless!

I can detail a process through which bitcoin is used primarily for speculation and criminal activity.

Can you detail a feasible process whereby bitcoin gets rid of the aircraft carriers?

Or alternatively, can you detail a feasible process whereby bitcoin gets rid of income inequality?

Can you show me where I said the aircraft carriers need to be gotten rid of? Can you show me where I even mentioned income inequality, let alone said it should be gotten rid of?

Your glib reply of 'lol, banks already do this, why do we need to put it on the blockchain' just assumed that banks exist without external costs. And now I'm supposed to get rid of all the external costs you don't know exist? Get an imagination, or beat up on a different straw man.

So you're saying that society as a whole would be better off simply using banks? Given that the external costs of banks have already been paid, and we can save a ton of energy by not flooding the etulip market with speculation.

> What are the costs of maintaining a system of banks capable of acting as a trusted custodian in such a transaction, covering every jurisdiction the globe over

Transaction for transaction the banking system is orders of magnitude cheaper.

> Have you amortized the cost of aircraft carriers, diplomats, social and class mobility, the set of externalities that ultimately end up reconciled through war and collapse

This is totally absurd. Bitcoin has no impact on the existence of aircraft carriers, diplomats, and social/class mobility. The class mobility line is particularly laughable as it pertains to a technology that would enshrine early adopters as defacto oligarchs.

> This is totally absurd. Bitcoin has no impact on the existence of aircraft carriers, diplomats, and social/class mobility.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

Ok? A wikipedia link is not a rebuttal. Not that you're obligated to make one, I'm just pointing out you haven't made an argument.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com