Retail with digital cash is the closest, but as a consumer there’s no real benefit to me over visa and the “real” coins like eth and bitcoin are very expensive for purchases.
I think a central bank digital currency with transaction fees in the millionth of a cent (the real compute cost) would be so much better for retail.
You are 100% correct regarding Ethereum gas fees. Transaction fees on current generation L1s are 0.0025 cents.
Digital "gold" is a meaningless term.
Retail without 3% going to Visa...instead some variable percent will go to transaction fees.
Distributing royalties to artists is just something called programmable NFTs. It’s just cryptography - a program enforces the artist’s account is credited to allow a transfer and it’s not a big deal. artists are absolutely making money from this. It fixes an issue in traditional art where the resale value of an artists earlier works increases however, the artist doesn’t see any of those returns.
Transaction fees on modern layer 1 crypto platforms are 0.0025 cents.
The meaning of the term Digital gold is an asset that is not subject to quantitative easing from the government. I.e. one cannot mine vast quantities of Gold or produce vast quantities of new bitcoins very easily.
Pardon the edits, I am using voice dictation, as I’m having trouble using my hands.
This is a non sequitur.
"Some software uses draconian DRM" is neither the same as, nor a refutation of, "enforcing ownership of digital goods like art requires draconian DRM."
I am not asserting that some software uses DRM as if DRM is the exception. I am saying that we are in the hellscape You described when nearly everything that wants to uses DRM.
This seems like a goal best solved by a good/fair/efficient legal system, not a technical problem. Recording ownership is easy; determining where intellectual property ends and fair use begins is where the complexity is at. I haven't seen NFTs etc. meaningfully address any of that.
> retail without 3% going to visa
Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks.
> a world where everybody has a friendly name for their public key and we can communicate privately
What's the connection to cryptocurrency here? We've had that way before Bitcoin.
recording ownership of digital goods at scale has historically been very difficult. fair use is important but does not help artists get paid. Please don’t read that is being anti fair use. It is rather that fair use is orthogonal to this problem.
> Yes, card payments are quite inefficient, but not anywhere near 3% go to the card networks.
Glad we agree on at least one of these. Visa is 2.9 percent plus some other minor fee I can’t remember right now.
> What's the connection to cryptocurrency here?
Usability. I guarantee you more people have crypto wallets now that have ever installed PGP, GPG, or any other similar app in the entire history of computing.
No, that's the total that the merchant pays. The biggest chunk of that goes to the issuing bank and pays for credit card rewards which you get back as the cardholder in some form.
Credit cards (at least in the US) are a fairly efficient payment system, but as long as there will be card rewards, they effectively create a cash surcharge at all merchants that accept them: If you pay by card, the biggest chunk of these ~3% is kicked back to you, so the merchant usually just bakes that 3% into their prices, but you get the biggest part of it back. But since merchants usually don't have two sets of prices (although there are exceptions), cash payers end up net-paying more, i.e. indirectly pay for your card rewards.
This isn't the case in all countries globally; for example, in the EU, card interchange is capped to about 10% of what merchants pay in the US. As a result, merchant fees are much lower, but there are practically no more rewards.
[1] https://www.visa.co.uk/dam/VCOM/regional/ve/unitedkingdom/PD...
Which ironically also includes digital assets, on account of the analog-hole existing (you have to shoot light into eyeballs at some point).
Eyeballs thing is true, but hasn’t stopped cryptography being effective in other areas for example, Netflix, Disney+, Hulu, Apple TV etc seem to be doing well despite the electrons reaching my eyeballs unencrypted. The same applies to collectible images, videos and code.
How does a smart contract ensure the custodian is doing any of the things it assumes they are? What is the actual mechanism meant to be, that resists someone inputting "yes I definitely have this car here" when they do not?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35970568
Current generation L1s don’t use the term smart contract anymore because they have almost no resemblance to actual contracts. Rather they are on chain financial programs. I definitely make no attempt to compare on chain programs to legal contracts.
I have repeatedly stated that software cannot prevent fraud.
Specifically, what value is Blockchain providing that is not provided by a simple database run by the trusted party who would be necessary to execute any part of the actual physical interactions where all the value is provided?
Completely agreed, I have not done that. As I’ve mentioned repeatedly, I just want you to pick one of the six use cases so I can answer your questions.
I’m going to respectfully end this conversation as I’ve tried to engage you in good faith and you’re not going to tell me what you want or simply don’t understand what I am asking.
Meaning you actually have no argument, got it.
You remind me of the guy that gets on a train carriage and yells about how he will fight everyone but then backs down when someone takes him up on the offer.