I don't see why these would need a blockchain rather than just a centralized database.
I'm very skeptical of these use cases.
I'm very skeptical of these use cases.
For example, suppose US and Iran agreed to pay each other some amount as proof of their sactions deal...
US doesn't trust Iran or its central bank. Iran doesn't trust SWIFT, since it can be easily manipulated by its enemies (as it has been, before). US doesn't trust the alternative to SWIFT, since it is run by Russia and China.
EDIT: common people, that was just an example, it doesn't mean future transactions between US and Iran would be done that way. It was just an easy to understand example.
So what's the purpose of _private_ blockchains then? Grandparent comment was about "Permissioned blockchains can be useful..." not blockchain in general.
How does it remain private in a trustless case?
Alternatively, who keeps the blockchain private? Who manages access? If there is an impartial 3rd party, an "authority" or a "broker", a "governor" that all other parties can trust to do that, even if they don't trust each other ... can't that authority just use a database, with some checksums and signed rows if need be? What can't you get from a private github repo?
Is the "private blockchain" centralised or decentralised?
I feel that every time I see this discussion, the argument is shifted to a straw man whenever the wrong question is asked.
The intersection of the set of "private" and "mutually distrustful parties" is essentially 0.
https://apnews.com/article/fd4113419276444eba1d2a46d5c29752
In 2016, the US paid Iran $1.7B in pallets of EUR and CHF. The article's not explicit, but the settlement network probably uses a C-130.
Or is the set of blockchain payments an guarantee of adherence to the deal? How would that help? Are the coins supposed to be returned in case of lack of adherence? If that is the case, how would I trust the other party to return the bitcoin?
A NFT could also be minted, where people and institutions stake money on the deal and if either party breaks the agreement, the NFT is burned. So stakers are incentivized to do whatever is within their reach to make governments stick to the deal - otherwise they would lose their investments.
The way to bootstrap participatory democracy in a world that only cares about the money is to bake it into the money.
You can do this with paper. Signed paper documents. You have invented the "treaty". It has been a thing for centuries.
The whole "blockchain-backed international treaty" example is admittedly a bit contrived though. It's kind of a "horseless carriage" thing - trying to explain to @markwkw that no "blockchain payments" would be necessary, by expanding on their mental model. (Maybe that's an unwise strategy, and I need to start just rudely dismissing people instead, but I'm not sure how that would help with comprehension)
Engineering solutions based on binary ideas of true and false just don't apply to diplomacy or politics
EDIT: I define "reneging on the deal" as "acting as if the deal never happened".
The more governance decisions are recorded on the public record, the less opportunities there would be for parties to say "the other guy started it".
Also the deal could be set up to hurt both parties if they violate a predetermined condition. Maybe burn 5% of each party's GDP. Then they would be actually incentivized to collaborate.
Normally the courts solve this problem, so this is only an issue if one or both parties are operating outside of the law.
Which, for normal financial enterprises trying to do business, creates regulatory problems: Chase can't exactly transact with the PLA without getting bulldozed by regulators, and you can't exactly hide the transaction on blockchain (since its immutable).
In the scenario you describe, there are ways of cheating even in blockchain (51% attack), and there are ways of solving the issue outside of blockchain (military force, embargos).
This would generally be responsible for paying parties that actually trust you, using Treasury checks and possibly small amounts of cash, but there is an equivalent position within the uniformed Finance Corps where you pay untrusted parties who also don't trust you. For that purpose, you deliver extremely large briefcases full of cash. Basically, the same idea as a drug deal where the buyer and seller don't trust each other. Everything is transacted in cash, and both parties are carrying a lot of guns. This is generally how we make payments to local warlords in theaters of combat where they are not by any means an internationally recognized legitimate authority you can make any kind of a treaty with, but you need to buy their cooperation anyway.
As for trusting they'll actually deliver what you're buying, again, that's what the guns are for.
Heck, as it stands right now just for normal consumers, buyers and sellers don't need to trust each other. They just need a legal authority who can prosecute each side and they need to trust that legal authority. Barring that, they need an extra legal authority they trust with guns.
As it stands, the obvious limitation of a blockchain is it only helps if your transaction is solely the exchange of data stored on the blockchain itself. Otherwise, you're back to the same issue. The fact that a transaction is recorded on a ledger doesn't mean either party actually received the goods they expected, and it doesn't mean they have any means of remediation, legal or otherwise, if they don't. The fact that a ledger says you own something doesn't mean you're in possession of it, and it doesn't mean the party that is in possession of it has to give it to you.
Would you say that blockchains make this faster, cheaper and less prone to fraud?
[1] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-barclays-blockchain...