320
Agent maxing
(thelemmy.club)
"We did it, Patrick! We made a technological breakthrough!"
A place for all those who loathe AI to discuss things, post articles, and ridicule the AI hype. Proud supporter of working people. And proud booer of SXSW 2024.
AI, in this case, refers to LLMs, GPT technology, and anything listed as "AI" meant to increase market valuations.
NFTs were a thing before they became associated with monkey images. They have a real use case, and arguably are the most useful thing in the whole cryptocurrency space. I know it sounds crazy, but hear me out on this. And before you ask, I don't own any NFTs.
NFTs were never meant to represent ownership rights to monkey pictures, and that is indeed a stupid use case with absolutely no utility. They were intended to represent ownership rights to tangible, real-life assets, like stocks, bonds, or land. The idea was that you could have any of these assets, which in real life typically take the form of a paper certificate or digital book entry, and then replace it with an NFT so you can do fun stuff with it. Most of the benefit comes from two properties: firstly, that everything done on a blockchain needs to be authenticated using cryptographic keys, and secondly, the calculations which occur must come from public source code which people can audit and trust (note: blockchains typically punish excessively complicated code by making it more expensive to run), and therefore automated programs can carry out many actions typically entrusted to humans.
Let me give some actual examples o real-world utility:
I don't think any of your examples are actual improvements - they just open up exciting new opportunities for inefficiency, fraud, grift, and graft, while creating a new barrier to entry (technological literacy regarding cryptocurrency) for anyone who wants to safely use them.
I mean, for example, blockchains are trustless systems, but land ownership isn't a trustless system - the government, generally through the judicial system, is the final arbiter of who owns land. So either the government manages land records on its own spreadsheets, or you use a blockchain, which is just a spreadsheet with extra steps, and has to have a judicial override allowing land tokens to be transferred without the owner's consent, which eliminates one of the biggest reasons to use a blockchain in the first place.
And besides that, if all homeowners are publicly known and identified on that blockchain, all homeowners immediately become targets for identity and private key theft. Somebody forging a deed to my house and selling it to a third party who shows up expecting to move in sucks. Somebody stealing my private keys because my 5-year-old downloaded an Italian brainrot generator with a malicious payload, and then selling those keys to a third party, who shows up expecting to move in, also sucks, and has much less of a paper trail that I can use to prove the fraud.
Same with auctions, with the stock exchange, and so on - NFTs don't offer any real improvements over online databases, and while they make certain types of fraud more difficult, they create opportunities for new types of fraud that the legal system has much less experience dealing with.
You are definitely right that 90% of the functionality of NFTs is already implemented in current systems. But the difference is that NFTs integrate cryptography in a way that makes these actions much more efficient. It's easier to plug a smart card into a computer and generate a cryptographic signature than it is to sign a document in person, and it's also harder (but not impossible) to argue that cryptographic signature wasn't generated by you. And when it comes to deeds, it's often times necessary to search up what encumbrances exist on the deed and what happened to it in the past. Blockchains don't turn this from impossible to possible (a land office can already just have a clerk find and deliver this information), but they do make it faster, and the blockchain's properties store this information and make it accessible in a way that we already know how it works.
I want to stress that while most cryptocurrency assets follow the principle of "code is law", there is no reason that NFTs representing real world assets can't follow the principle of "law is law". As in, human law written by legislatures and enforced by courts.
In a real world implementation of this system, private keys would probably be stored on a physical device, in a way that said keys are never exposed at all. The functionality already exists to embed the signing software onto a smart card, and that smart card can be one's ID card (smart ID cards are already used for this purpose in Hong Kong, where they can generate cryptographic signatures that replace physical signatures on contracts).
In addition to that, there is always the escape hatch where, according to an established legal process, a court or government authority can declare a token invalid and re-issue it.
While NFTs could, in theory, entirely replace paper deeds, the argument you make is one among many reasons why doing so would be a bad idea. Instead, deeds would probably only optionally be recorded as an NFT.
I think all those features are already available and working really well in a high-trust society. In any non-crumbling modern country you already have trust systems embedded in people and institutions, not algorithms, and when they fail you have a court system where another human can disentangle the situation and rule one way or the other. This is a much more desirable state than a low-trust society with algorithmically enforced rules.
Because when you fall in a blockchain edge case, you're fucked and truly fucked. Nobody can come up and save your ass if someone manages to take advantage of you despite the algorithmic safeguards (which may or may not be well coded themselves). Nobody can help if you die suddenly without handing your crypto keys to a trusted party. This kind of problems, which are trivially solved in the real world, are literally impossible to solve in a blockchain.
Sure, fraud and bad faith can happen in real world institutions, but that's really a marginal risk, everyday millions of transactions go on without a hitch. And when something fails there's always a chance of getting your day in court. On average, blockchain "solves" a problem which most people will never encounter in their life. I would imagine that there are interesting applications of the tech in high-stakes boring businesses such as logistics and banking but that's infrastructure that the end user would never even know exists.
You're definitely right that existing systems already implement 99% of the functionality that one would ever want out of these assets, but I do want to note that the notion of "code is law" is pretty optional when you're talking about these Government-backed assets. Code is not law. Law is law.
If an asset is transferred on a blockchain, it's only presumptively authorised, not conclusively. Just like a paper deed bearing what looks like your signature next to a notary stamp is also only presumptively valid. You can go to court to overturn that presumption. By similar logic, a "master key" can exist to allow transfer of the assets by court order. And because the blockchain is still just a human concept which has only the value humans assign to it, if all else fails, a court or government can just declare a problematic deed NFT to be invalid and re-issue it or go back to paper.