back

by kristjansson·4y ago·view on hn ↗
You're definitely not crazy. The only miss here is that there's no money changing hands between the parties - the contract is 3rd party.

So it's more like, to borrow my car, you have to post 1.5x the value in an escrow account, I have to post 0.5x into the same account. If-and-only-if we both press the 'happily concluded' button, we each get the money back. If it goes south, our only recourse to (a) destroy the value in the escrow account (which either of us can do unilaterally at any time), or (b) use the leverage provided by (a) to negotiate an amicable solution outside the contract.

Which doesn't sound any less wild, or provide any more of a solution for actually dealing with the meatspace problem. In fact it adds a meatspace problem, since you can't actually be made whole by the escrowed amount, you have to go negotiate with someone that is trying to screw you (or who broke your camera, or trashed your house, or whatever) to arrange an out-of-band resolution.

2 comments
Crazy idea as it is I feel like it's an interesting social experiment which I want to enter. Make smart contacts so that in case of non agreement the mutual deposit goes to Green Peace after some time and it almost starts to make sense.

But what is new about "web3" that wasn't part of the original Ethereum idea?

That reminds me of that example from many a game theory class where you take a pair of people, say Alice and Bob, and you say "I have $100 to split between you. Alice, propose a split. If Bob then agrees to that split it shall be done. If Bob does not agree to your proposed split neither of you gets any money".
I believe this is Prisoners Dilemma.
Yes, with the payoffs constructed they’re zero unless the players cooperate.