“We want to be credible, where others are not”.

According to the Erlang-Veteran and æternity-Blockchain developer Ulf Wiger, the comparison of block chains is with traditional payment solutions, the wrong point of view.Block chains that want to compete with Fintech giants such as Visa and Paypal, piling up more and more. But can the Blockchain solutions also in the case of issues such as scaling and volume with visas to replace existing POS payment solutions?During the intensive research and testing of State-Channels has been shown in æternity a significant improvement over other Blockchain solutions, says Wiger, that the comparison of the Blockchain with Visa is an Apples-versus-oranges Situation.Wiger says:

It is not our fight. We don’t want there to be a credible, where others are not. Something like Blockchain should not be aimed at with things in a direct comparison, the work well today – not in the context of the assumptions that people have nowadays.One of the main factors, which ensure that the Visa works is that you trust. If this trust is lost once, then it is not a really viable solution. Sometimes you don’t want to use Visa, because they don’t want to give their credit card information to someone who you trust. If you can’t trust the established payment processing, you will not use your credit card and look for something else.Just in the areas where the trust model does not work any more, can Blockchains be successful, because in many cases, is associated with this trust and the performance fee. In these transactions, you will pay a certain percentage. And in the case of small transactions, these fees proportionally, even significantly.

Ulf Wiger at the conference GOTO 2019 in Copenhagen.

Questionable ‘trusted systems’

Apart from the fact that the need for trust is reduced, there are far more far-reaching impact: the avoidance of discrimination in transactions, and the Insistence of retailers and service providers, the legality, and not personal prejudices to respect.Wiger noted in this regard:

Sometimes large payment processors and companies are too scared of your reputation. You feel pressured to deny certain persons or groups of services.

Denial-of-service for some very familiar. For example, Patreon received, a platform for the financing of the content, a counter-reaction, due to censorship, after you had deleted certain accounts, in the Public as a questionable perceived reasons.Some payment providers such as Paypal forbid to transactions for adult content and sex work – even in places where they are legal. Credit cards are an Alternative, but most do not want these services to appear in your invoices.Non-R-rated content will not be spared. In the year 2019, the Video-Sharing platform, the Tiktok limited, in order to prevent bullying, the dissemination of content by people they considered “harassment-prone” and punished so that accidentally the supposed “would-be victims” that you wanted to protect.

Legal reasons as the limits of freedom

The right to conclude transactions, to publish content and operate the total trade, should not be subject to, according to Wiger, the prejudices of a single company.

If your livelihood depends on a framework for sponsorship or something similar, don’t you want the provider to act out of subjective reasons, and you out, not throw, just because they like you. We want you to be content neutral.We can discuss about good subjective arguments for being thrown out, but a stronger Argument would be that if something is legal, you should not interfere. The border of where you want to get involved or a transaction should reject, would Essentially be the law. This is pretty classic.Their opinions, their skin colour, their sexual orientation should not determine whether you are allowed to make a purchase or a transaction. If it is legal, no one should have the luxury of someone due to personal prejudices should be rejected.

This attitude is an Echo of other developers in the æternity Community. A group of developers has recently launched superhero.com to life – a digital Wallet for a fully trusted P2P Transfers between Internet users, third parties act as the moral police.Milen Radkov, one of the developers of the interior, said behind-the-Superhero-Wallet:

We want to give the people their right to act freely. It doesn’t matter whether we like them or not.

Wiger, however, clear that this is for Goods and infrastructure services are already largely true, there are still grey areas.

In some cases, it is not enough to eliminate the explicit legal discrimination – one must even criminalize the kind of discrimination that would, from a legal point of view, robust delimit.

But even that has its gaps:

This raises new problems: It is quite easy to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex or skin color. But a prohibition of discrimination on the basis of opinions, whether expressed or accepted, is an entirely different matter.

Wiger explained the point and said:

You can’t adopt, so simple laws: You can’t force people to associate with people or groups that you find offensive. And you can also specify by law what it means, ‘good’ opinions.

How is the Blockchain so better than what we have now?

Trust-based payment options will always be in this Dilemma – the trusted intermediary will always be attacks by groups exposed to the other who want to harm, by cutting them off from payment or marketing channels. The middle man is accused by Association and feels compelled to block the other party, rather than try to stay out of principle, stand firm. A modern objection to this Argument would be that you should not need to as long as one has the correct morality and appropriate behavior, such protection.

Wiger warned, however:

History has taught us that it works like this: If systems can be abused, people will find a way to abuse it.

In the meantime, the block chains can not be pushed to beat on any side of a debate.

By far the most trusted middle-man, and the degree of confidence in explicit and transparent, are the block chains are much less prone to Ad-hoc interference in their right to trade.

The hurdle: the human aversion to faceless beings

Block chains promise to the people the Power back. So poetic that sounds, it is much easier to digest for the Public.For individuals who are born into a society and raised to belong in the “trust” and authority, always automatically members of institutions, is the idea, to have full control, even confusing, and frightening. The idea of faceless, nameless beings of unknown make distant Parts of the world shops, which are only represented by a series of letters and Numbers, is not easy to accept.Wiger added:

We are still accustomed to trust the major players. Most of the people have been really burned bad.

Questionable policies and decisions of trusted institutions add up to an exploding demand for trusted systems.A final thought from Wiger:

If this escalates, it will be the niche in which block chains are interesting, even greater, because then there is not enough trust so that this trust-based systems can work effectively. This is because of this trust, your essence and your demise.

You have thoughts and comments on the report of æternity that you’d care to discuss?Then, come in our Telegram Chat and talk with the experts and the Community!
Subscribe to our News channel to not miss any News.
[Image Source: Shutterstock]

Cryptocurrency Market