Key Features
Tech Stack
This is now my favorite way to visualize these concepts in practice.
- Who wants to drive across town to inspect a €50 item for a small fee?
- Can a random broker validate a luxury watch? Do we need another blockchain tech for broker validator skill reputation?
- Physical validation adds days to trades, in online economy, the faster the merrier
- Fees might price out low-value items
Let's see how this plays out.
-Who wants to drive across town to inspect a €50 item? The focus is on mid to high-value, preferably niche items. Lower-value goods often don’t justify the costs involved in driving and the time spent on validation.
-Can a random broker validate a luxury watch? Not all brokers have the necessary expertise to validate every item, especially luxury goods. The proposal is to enhance the current system by assigning brokers based on item categories. This specialization will be particularly effective when there are enough brokers for specific categories, such as watches.
- Physical validation adds days to trades. While physical validation can slow things down, brokers who fail to validate effectively will phase out over time, ensuring that only those with the right expertise remain. It should be economically infeasible to accept assignment, where you have no expertise. This approach aims to streamline the validation process.
-Fees might price out low-value items. Focusing on mid to high-value items helps avoid the issue of fees pricing out lower-value goods.
Additionally, this idea is designed to integrate into existing niches where validation matters significantly, like trading cards, electronics, watches, and sneakers. Numerous businesses already specialize in validating these items and have the necessary expertise to navigate legal requirements.
How will this ensure waning/gaining expertise is accurately represented/fostered? Wouldn't you rather attract a steady-stream of experts indefinitely?
LLM-generated comments aren't allowed here.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46371134
You're in flagrant breach of Hacker News Guidelines.
I think this kind of behavior in principle would be detectable but in principle with enough concentration in the market, a fraudulent seller could in practice get brokers and jurors to collude with them.
Also regarding the code, why are you defining private?
#define private publicThis is a massive code smell.
In the case of commentary, an author who uses AI to converse about "his" work indicates a fundamental misunderstanding/lack of comprehension thereof which leads to
The case of code, where an author who is unqualified to have built a certain product himself is thereby unqualified to review AI generated code implementing said product.
The author's post features the quotation of "Brokers", whose quotation has no logical basis except in established LLM generational norms. Furthermore the excessive colons following each feature are also typical of generated text.
The code is not much better. As I spotted rather quickly, the
#define private public
#define true false
#define while if
That said, while I'm no fan of slop I don't feel like the constant accusations of AI we now see bandied about are constructive. The general vibe at this point feels like name calling or even a witch hunt.
Bad or lazy writing should be called out regardless of how it was produced. Same for code. I'd say that "#define private public" stands on its own as case in point; how it was arrived at seems almost entirely irrelevant.
(2) No reason not to adapt existing standards to be compatible with any of the wallets that already exist.
(3) No reason to introduce your own wallet. How many wheels do you want to reinvent here?
(4) No reason to invent your own currency (and in fact this makes your escrow system break completely.)
Btw: the problem you're trying to solve has been "solved" many times over before using various escrow mechanism dating back to the gox era. The reason they all failed is because no protocol can make up for the opacity and unpredictable nature of the real world. If you think about it your solution is more like the opposite of what makes cryptocurrencies valuable: you're essentially increasing transaction costs to try "improve" the physical verifiability of goods. When normal people just use semi-trusted merchants which are faster and cheaper.
By the sound of your protocol it would increase shipping time substantially, increase costs to buyers (I'm assuming they have to pay higher fees to pay the verifiers), and after all that it still doesn't prevent scamming. Because you never know if a verifier prefers to hold on to an item and burn all their collateral based on changing economic conditions. Maybe they end up with an expensive item that holds considerable value relative to the staked currency (which I'm again assuming that you're inventing another wheel and increasing friction even more by introducing your own currency. Not going to even bother to look.)
Your idea resembles a more error-prone version of high-end verification markets like precious metals, gem stones, and art trading. But lacks a lot of the simple guarantees that such markets would provide.
There's absolutely no need to make a new L1 for that: you can use existing smart contract/dapp platforms, plug into existing stable coin rails, etc.
Not affiliated with Hacker News or Y Combinator. We simply enrich the public API with analytics.