Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Use case: two parties want to transact with cryptocoins on one end and two pizzas on another

Problem: you need an external oracle to verify "real world" part of the transaction and blockchain part simultaneously.

Implications: The security and associated cost of DLT/blockchain is useless as the trust of transaction is offloaded from the distributed consensus to real world entity, which could simply update an entry in a postgres database without sacrificing any security at all, but with lower alternative cost, hence negative value add.

I don't think it's possible to design a general scheme, backed by a smart contract, with economic incentives for all three parties to play nice. In the real world, the inherent mutability of transactions enables economic (dis-)incentives for functional oracles.

> If your concern is oracle manipulation common onchain apps don’t rely on single oracles.

What you are hinting at are bet/prediction-like applications, which eventually deal with the same on-chain objects - memecoins described, circumventing the oracle problem.



A database would be controlled by a single entity. It could be turned off, have it’s source code vary from what is advertised, or otherwise be manipulated. That’s obviously an incredible risk to security.

I’m not hinting at bet/prediction like applications, there are many uses for oracles aside from this.

Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins.


> A database would be controlled by a single entity.

There is literally no downside to that once you put all the trust on a single entity anyway.

> Also prediction markets don’t have anything to do with meme coins.

So what's the underlying asset that is the object of transaction if not memecoins?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: