Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by ne0n 4271 days ago
"Do you mean you don't think people can be trusted to keep their own shares safe?" Well, to a degree, yeah. Most people don't know how to properly keep them safe.

The main thing I'm trying to say is that it's potentially easier to steal shares, and there is really no way of reversing it if it's decentralized. If you know some shares are stolen, can you invalidate them, or reissue shares? It's not really completely decentralized if you can. There is probably still a central authority for creating and issuing shares, but they will allow you to trade the shares in a peer-to-peer way.
1 comments
ThomPete 4271 days ago
Just thinking loosly here.

It my understanding that the decentralized part refers to the networked validation.

I.e couldn't you imagine a setup where the network collectively invalidates a set of shares and re-issue them back to the original owner. A kind of distributed jury system.

Now the problem of course is that the jury could be wrong and I have no idea about the actual implementation but it seems to me like a potential solution in the future.

link
Kalium 4271 days ago
Even if that's the case, how do you convince the network that the shares need to be invalidated? How do you do that in a way that can't be faked?

That sounds a lot like another set of private keys to me. We already know those are vulnerable to being stolen.

link
ThomPete 4271 days ago
Because the protocol is transparent so you can trace what happened?

Ebay and Paypal solve 60million disputes a year using software.

http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2011/02/08/ebay-paypal-solve-...

I am not saying I know how to do this just saying that I don't think it's going to be as hard as some might thing. But sure I could be wrong.

And keep in mind. No system is perfect. Neither is the crypto-protocol. But it doesn't need to be. It just have to be good enough.

link
Kalium 4271 days ago
Just because you can trace how shares/money moved doesn't mean you can convince the rest of the network that the movement was improper.

This doesn't meet any sane definition of "good enough". It gives up a bunch of protections for no real gains.

link
ThomPete 4270 days ago
Perhaps perhaps not. It seems pretty early still to say anything with certainty.
link