Crypto Cities(vitalik.ca)
vitalik.ca
Crypto Cities
https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/10/31/cities.html
54 comments
Lots of things "don't need" to be written in python, but they're written in python anyway. I expect a lot of blockchain institutional use cases will take a similar route: sure, theoretically they could use some standardized federated solution, but in practice blockchain tx fees will become low enough through layer-2s to be negligible and that's where all the infrastructure to help users verify what's going on, and use those verifications in other applications, will be built. NFTs are already an incredibly easy to use and verify type of certificate; their biggest weakness is that (because of limitations in technology that are completely temporary and will disappear soon) transaction fees are too high.
Like... why _not_ dump Merkle roots on-chain?
Like... why _not_ dump Merkle roots on-chain?
> Lots of things "don't need" to be written in python, but they're written in python anyway.
This is a weak argument. Many things shouldn't be written in python, because it would the wrong tool for the job. Networking libraries that require bare metal performance, high assurance systems that are easier to write in strongly typed languages.
Block chains solve untrusted writing in the presence of byzantine faults. Not all applications require this. Most don't.
> Like... why _not_ dump Merkle roots on-chain?
Because the data isn't merkelized?
This is a weak argument. Many things shouldn't be written in python, because it would the wrong tool for the job. Networking libraries that require bare metal performance, high assurance systems that are easier to write in strongly typed languages.
Block chains solve untrusted writing in the presence of byzantine faults. Not all applications require this. Most don't.
> Like... why _not_ dump Merkle roots on-chain?
Because the data isn't merkelized?
Choosing the wrong language doesn’t usually come with multiple order of magnitude differential in energy costs. Or changing the security guarantees being offered - that’s usually at the application layer.
As an example, you’re open to Sybil attacks, and ongoing costs of mining. You need to understand the economics behind the chain you chose to make sure it doesn’t die, and hand off the key management to land owners.
When we have a simpler solution that doesn’t burn the planet, and is easily understood by everyone - as engineers it is our responsibility to have a really compelling reason to ignore it. I don’t see it here.
As an example, you’re open to Sybil attacks, and ongoing costs of mining. You need to understand the economics behind the chain you chose to make sure it doesn’t die, and hand off the key management to land owners.
When we have a simpler solution that doesn’t burn the planet, and is easily understood by everyone - as engineers it is our responsibility to have a really compelling reason to ignore it. I don’t see it here.
Why not though? I'm buying a house and this came to mind.
-Centralized city/county tokenizes all parcels of land, grants them to current owners
-I can prove I own it via a signed transaction, and anyone can trustlessly verify I own it
-When I sell it, I can trustlessly transfer it to the recipient for an agreed upon price via smart contract
Boom, no more closing fees. Eliminate the scammy title insurance industry. No broker fees... etc etc. Can someone ship this before I waste five figures paying parasites next month?
EDIT: Thoughts on flow.
-Seller owns token 123 in address A, which yourCity.gov shows is the following plat.
-Buyer approaches seller, provides address B. Seller provides address, buyer can verify that token matches plat via yourCity.gov
-Buyer and Seller agree on offer, Buyer provides address which reveals requisite funds.
-Seller generates a simple smart contract, _including the buyers address_. Code is essentially "upon receipt of 150 ETH from address B, this address will transfer token 123 to B".
The buyer can then pay or not, knowing that if he pays X he will receive Y (and thus, legal ownership enforced by the state). The seller can take down/invalidate the contract at any time before it executes. The seller could also put another contract up to another buyer, and if buyer #2 pays before buyer #1 they get the token (and any broadcasts from buyer 1 fail because the token is gone).
Seems pretty transparent to me.
-Centralized city/county tokenizes all parcels of land, grants them to current owners
-I can prove I own it via a signed transaction, and anyone can trustlessly verify I own it
-When I sell it, I can trustlessly transfer it to the recipient for an agreed upon price via smart contract
Boom, no more closing fees. Eliminate the scammy title insurance industry. No broker fees... etc etc. Can someone ship this before I waste five figures paying parasites next month?
EDIT: Thoughts on flow.
-Seller owns token 123 in address A, which yourCity.gov shows is the following plat.
-Buyer approaches seller, provides address B. Seller provides address, buyer can verify that token matches plat via yourCity.gov
-Buyer and Seller agree on offer, Buyer provides address which reveals requisite funds.
-Seller generates a simple smart contract, _including the buyers address_. Code is essentially "upon receipt of 150 ETH from address B, this address will transfer token 123 to B".
The buyer can then pay or not, knowing that if he pays X he will receive Y (and thus, legal ownership enforced by the state). The seller can take down/invalidate the contract at any time before it executes. The seller could also put another contract up to another buyer, and if buyer #2 pays before buyer #1 they get the token (and any broadcasts from buyer 1 fail because the token is gone).
Seems pretty transparent to me.
Since you are trusting a third party to validate/invalidate token ownership anyway, why not let them run a centralised infrastructure for bids/escrow as well. Bids could be published (via a Git repo for validation, or via a Transparency log) to maintain integrity.
The security model doesn’t change - this party could sign away your land ownership already. You don’t need to trust an arbitrary blockchain, or mining economics or get all land owners to buy multisig hardware wallets.
The security model doesn’t change - this party could sign away your land ownership already. You don’t need to trust an arbitrary blockchain, or mining economics or get all land owners to buy multisig hardware wallets.
If someone steals the crypto keys to your house and transfers it to themselves are the cops going to come and kick you out of the house?
So nothing really changes or gets better. There is always chance that government claws back the property... Why is crypto then needed in process in the first place?
It seems that issue being fixed is lack of proper land registry.
It seems that issue being fixed is lack of proper land registry.
Since "blockchain" is already a very stretched term, I think Cert Transparency log can be classified as a blockchain.
I can’t find it now, I remember the CT announcement posts explicitly calling it out as “not a blockchain”. The CloudFlare announcement also makes fun of it:
> Certificate Transparency brings accountability to the web PKI using a technology called a <del>blockchain an append-only public ledger, </del> an ordered list.
Crypto is really good at co-opting existing terms (crypto, Web3 for eg) and we shouldn’t let it go the other way as well, calling an ordered list a blockchain.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-certificate-transpar...
> Certificate Transparency brings accountability to the web PKI using a technology called a <del>blockchain an append-only public ledger, </del> an ordered list.
Crypto is really good at co-opting existing terms (crypto, Web3 for eg) and we shouldn’t let it go the other way as well, calling an ordered list a blockchain.
https://blog.cloudflare.com/introducing-certificate-transpar...
"Blockchain" became a term when people started riding on Bitcoin hype to push their own scamcoins. So, on one hand there was "there's not just Bitcoin, there's an entire Blockchain Space" theme, but on another — everyone saw "blockchain" as a giant ponzi operation. Also, there are people who are fixated on proof-of-work as something evil, so that's also why CT was saying "this is not a blockchain".
I think I finally "get" crypto. This article made me see the light. Crypto is about secession - a techno-anarchy. Decentralized governance with a self-managed currency is effectively creating a new city-state.
To be honest, the idea of the United States collapsing into a collection of Crypto City-States doesn't sound too bad. Better than a Mad Max scenario.
To be honest, the idea of the United States collapsing into a collection of Crypto City-States doesn't sound too bad. Better than a Mad Max scenario.
If you want to really understand the true crypto believers (the earlier crowd, not the speculators) you must read Atlas Shrugged.
In it, the heroes form their own society away from an (in their eyes) overreaching government, built on free exchange. In it they have a special bank vault that can never be looted, keeping their wealth safe, even in the event of the community being invaded. If it is forced open, the contents are destroyed. This is what Bitcoin (and crypto) can be to these people.
In it, the heroes form their own society away from an (in their eyes) overreaching government, built on free exchange. In it they have a special bank vault that can never be looted, keeping their wealth safe, even in the event of the community being invaded. If it is forced open, the contents are destroyed. This is what Bitcoin (and crypto) can be to these people.
Not that dissimilar to what some earlier colonialist charters did, and even countries like Canada are still doing today (with their point-based immigration system). Also similar to some modern micronation[1] enthusiasts, but they aren't as successful.
The very earliest Zionists (Chaim Weizmann[2]) didn't wanted to build a Jewish state, they wanted an ideal/Utopian society with the elite people speaking perfect German. They acquired the charter from the British and were very picky about whom they allowed to immigrate. I.e. they planned to hand pick only up to tens of thousands candidates per year. Eventually they were pushed away by more pragmatic non-colonialist Zionists, who wanted to build (or restore/revive[3]) a normal Jewish nation-state, not the Utopian society.
Something similar but on much larger scale happened in Rhodesia[4] (modern Zimbabwe).
There are probably other examples of picky charter states that I missed.
I remember years ago there were plans to found Crypto states in Central America / Caribbean region (Nicaragua, Puerto Rico). It's relatively easy to bribe the politicians there and get some of the country regions as a concession/charter/"Free Economic Zone".
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chaim-Weizmann
[3] there were plans to build a new Jewish states in Uganda or Madagascar, but the only place to restore/revive Jewish statehood was in the Land of Israel/Palestina.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia
The very earliest Zionists (Chaim Weizmann[2]) didn't wanted to build a Jewish state, they wanted an ideal/Utopian society with the elite people speaking perfect German. They acquired the charter from the British and were very picky about whom they allowed to immigrate. I.e. they planned to hand pick only up to tens of thousands candidates per year. Eventually they were pushed away by more pragmatic non-colonialist Zionists, who wanted to build (or restore/revive[3]) a normal Jewish nation-state, not the Utopian society.
Something similar but on much larger scale happened in Rhodesia[4] (modern Zimbabwe).
There are probably other examples of picky charter states that I missed.
I remember years ago there were plans to found Crypto states in Central America / Caribbean region (Nicaragua, Puerto Rico). It's relatively easy to bribe the politicians there and get some of the country regions as a concession/charter/"Free Economic Zone".
--
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
[2] https://www.britannica.com/biography/Chaim-Weizmann
[3] there were plans to build a new Jewish states in Uganda or Madagascar, but the only place to restore/revive Jewish statehood was in the Land of Israel/Palestina.
[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodesia
Sounds like a dystopian shithole, capitalism has never really worked without state intervention, bailing out the capitalist/bankers asses or suppressing worker protests.
Capitalism without minimal government control is nothing more then neo feudalism.
Maybe that is what they want, the early crypto adopters have the biggest bags of all sorts of coins it protects them from the
harsh living conditions such a neo feudal society will produce.
They would disagree that free markets lead to neo feudalism. A bit like socialists, they would claim their system has never really been tried. And in there defence, modern western economies have huge state involvement (including cronyism) so cannot be used as examples of a free market society.
Yep it has its origins in the cypherpunk movement which is anarchist.
If you're interested you might want to check out projects like Aragon (https://aragon.org/) to get a glimpse of how this type of thing could work.
I imagine far in the future you'd be a member of one or more DAOs governed by some sort of smart-contract based system. These groups could use tools like Aragon or w/e to vote, hold court, etc.
If you're interested you might want to check out projects like Aragon (https://aragon.org/) to get a glimpse of how this type of thing could work.
I imagine far in the future you'd be a member of one or more DAOs governed by some sort of smart-contract based system. These groups could use tools like Aragon or w/e to vote, hold court, etc.
While his article uses the word "city", I think this is entirely misleading.
It would be more accurate to describe the unit of organization that it empowers as a "gang". ...an "organized semi-anonymous gang".
...and this is why it's very apt at developing organized crime.
Now, to a certain degree, a "gang" that is scalable enough, profitable enough, and efficient enough - could indeed carve out a geographical territory. ...and from there, it's not that different from a city-state or nation.
...but that level of scalability does not yet exist.
You could conceivably program into a massively scalable chain, things like a court system, a legislative system, a tax system, a land records system, etc... but we are very very far away from that.
It's like predicting cyborgs because I can strap my phone to my arm while running. None of that level of scalability nor integration exists or is even theoretically solved.
...but there is one thing I will say. Some generation in the future might look back at our problems with "democracy" and the issues we have with one-man-one-vote, and laugh because the notion of humans having equal votes is a long gone memory. The crypto-hierarchy won't care about anything other than your "stake".
It would be more accurate to describe the unit of organization that it empowers as a "gang". ...an "organized semi-anonymous gang".
...and this is why it's very apt at developing organized crime.
Now, to a certain degree, a "gang" that is scalable enough, profitable enough, and efficient enough - could indeed carve out a geographical territory. ...and from there, it's not that different from a city-state or nation.
...but that level of scalability does not yet exist.
You could conceivably program into a massively scalable chain, things like a court system, a legislative system, a tax system, a land records system, etc... but we are very very far away from that.
It's like predicting cyborgs because I can strap my phone to my arm while running. None of that level of scalability nor integration exists or is even theoretically solved.
...but there is one thing I will say. Some generation in the future might look back at our problems with "democracy" and the issues we have with one-man-one-vote, and laugh because the notion of humans having equal votes is a long gone memory. The crypto-hierarchy won't care about anything other than your "stake".
> but there is one thing I will say. Some generation in the future might look back at our problems with "democracy" and the issues we have with one-man-one-vote, and laugh because the notion of humans having equal votes is a long gone memory. The crypto-hierarchy won't care about anything other than your "stake".
The CityDAO example Vitalik gives uses a one person/one vote system.
Crypto’s not inherently about replacing democracy. A lot of it is about experimenting with varied rule systems that our existing democracies are otherwise incapable of changing. Like shaping our rules for the commons more explicitly in order to nudge things in a better direction. The article points out the misaligned incentives between land owners, residents, and the city collective: land owners want to restrict supply to make their land more valuable, but this restricts growth of the city. For many, crypto is the biggest hope not for building some anarcho utopia, but just for experimenting with tweaks that might better align the incentives for everyone within a city. e.g. put all the land in a city inside a trust and replace land ownership with a share of that trust: now land owners don’t want to increase their tiny plot by restricting supply: they want to increase the whole pie, which can better be done by investing instead of speculating.
It’s hard to believe our cities today have all found their perfect form. Crypto gives you the tools to more rapidly diversify these systems, in the hope of finding better forms, faster.
The CityDAO example Vitalik gives uses a one person/one vote system.
Crypto’s not inherently about replacing democracy. A lot of it is about experimenting with varied rule systems that our existing democracies are otherwise incapable of changing. Like shaping our rules for the commons more explicitly in order to nudge things in a better direction. The article points out the misaligned incentives between land owners, residents, and the city collective: land owners want to restrict supply to make their land more valuable, but this restricts growth of the city. For many, crypto is the biggest hope not for building some anarcho utopia, but just for experimenting with tweaks that might better align the incentives for everyone within a city. e.g. put all the land in a city inside a trust and replace land ownership with a share of that trust: now land owners don’t want to increase their tiny plot by restricting supply: they want to increase the whole pie, which can better be done by investing instead of speculating.
It’s hard to believe our cities today have all found their perfect form. Crypto gives you the tools to more rapidly diversify these systems, in the hope of finding better forms, faster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom%E2%84%A2 describes exactly this scenario
[deleted]
I don't really understand what the incentive for the cities to adopt these tokens is except to appear "tech savvy"
Not saying the reasons don't exist but I just don't get it.
Not saying the reasons don't exist but I just don't get it.
Maybe this? :
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
"aims to encourage spending within a local community"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_currency
"aims to encourage spending within a local community"
But you don't need cryptocurrencies for a local currency. In fact, you better not use one because you don't need the distributed part of it, and you definitely want to be able to control the money supply. A centralized electronic system or a paper-based system are all you need. Or maybe use Taler[1] if you want some cool tech with bleeding edge cryptography.
[1]: https://taler.net/en/
[1]: https://taler.net/en/
And in those cases there could be censorship and manipulation you're not aware of.
Of course, but a city-scale crypto would be centralized anyway: it couldn't be PoW because a 51% attack is way too easy, and in a PoS scheme, the city council (or their technical support company) would almost certainly keep the majority of stakes for themselves.
They would most likely be ERC-20 tokens built on the ethereum chain. So you inherit the security of the main chain.
Also, they don't necessarily need to be centralized. The currency could be run via a DAO and changes to the currency could be voted on.
Also, they don't necessarily need to be centralized. The currency could be run via a DAO and changes to the currency could be voted on.
I guess what I'm getting at is through what mechanism. I can already buy every single thing available in my local community with American currency. Why do the tokens improve this situation?
Local currencies are a thing since the middle age. They allow for a distinct set of rules (=! Inflation rate) governed by “local” representatives. In strong economies (like g7), it does not make much sense, granted.
You may lose on the exchange processes vs “the global currency”, but your community may not care since aiming to trade locally.
PS : in constant inflationary economies (read Argentina, i think 600% in 10y), crypto is mainstream now for regular Joe's. Stable coins are all the rage to fight inflation.
You may lose on the exchange processes vs “the global currency”, but your community may not care since aiming to trade locally.
PS : in constant inflationary economies (read Argentina, i think 600% in 10y), crypto is mainstream now for regular Joe's. Stable coins are all the rage to fight inflation.
Stable coins are all the rage to fight inflation.
'Regular Joes' call them dollars, they exist as pieces of paper you can hold in your hand. They don't need to play silly games with crypto scammers.
'Regular Joes' call them dollars, they exist as pieces of paper you can hold in your hand. They don't need to play silly games with crypto scammers.
- Do you know what currency controls are?
- it's the government telling how much you can have of those dollars
- it's the government mandatory currency conversion to local currency when receiving dollars from outside the country. Gvmt keep the dollars and hand you local currency (that one that is loosing value by the day)
Yes. Countries not using dollars are exposed to conversion risk and potential shortages of hard currency. People whose native currency is the US dollar are not exposed to this risk, which is why all the inflation hawk stuff tends to look silly.
Holding cash during inflationary periods doesn’t fight inflation. Your dollar becomes less valuable.
As the other commenter noted , I think you are misunderstanding what a stable coin is. A usd stable coin entitles you to one dollar. The same way a dollar bill entitles you to one dollar. You can use both of them to try to get further yield but they both entitle you to a dollar.
His platform can even run Crypto Kitties without congesting.
Now they want to run crypto cities...gotta walk before you can run.
How about fixing crypto kitties first?
People have to pay such high fees that they are considering if it's even worth to have their kitties fuck with other kitties.
Now they want to run crypto cities...gotta walk before you can run.
How about fixing crypto kitties first?
People have to pay such high fees that they are considering if it's even worth to have their kitties fuck with other kitties.
I find it amazing that 5 years after a catastrophic failure that could have killed Ethereum[1], Vitalik is pitching DAOs once again…
But well, subprimes and CDS still exist, and the EU re-allowed using Meat and bone meal to feed castle 20 years after the mad cow disease, so I guess it's just that humans are just very bad at learning from our mistakes.
[1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec...
But well, subprimes and CDS still exist, and the EU re-allowed using Meat and bone meal to feed castle 20 years after the mad cow disease, so I guess it's just that humans are just very bad at learning from our mistakes.
[1] https://www.gemini.com/cryptopedia/the-dao-hack-makerdao#sec...
Yes because the entire Ethereum community moved on and continued innovating and improving and there are now dozens of open source governance structures for DAOs in place that have been battle tested and are running multi-billion dollar treasuries now:
https://gnosis-safe.io/ https://www.metacartel.org/ https://compound.finance/governance https://daohaus.club/ https://snapshot.org/#/gitcoindao.eth
We are very good at learning from our mistakes.
https://gnosis-safe.io/ https://www.metacartel.org/ https://compound.finance/governance https://daohaus.club/ https://snapshot.org/#/gitcoindao.eth
We are very good at learning from our mistakes.
The only thing that's battle tested is resistance of the hype to catastrophic failures.
In 2021, losing tens of millions in crypto assets because of a bug or a hack is considered normal an bothers no-one: in the last 3 months only, a billion dollar was lost or stolen (Poly network, Compound, Cream finance and smaller others), but “this is fine”.
In 2021, losing tens of millions in crypto assets because of a bug or a hack is considered normal an bothers no-one: in the last 3 months only, a billion dollar was lost or stolen (Poly network, Compound, Cream finance and smaller others), but “this is fine”.
Because mistakes are very expensive!
If anyone wants to work on DAOs and crypto solutions like this, I’m based in Vancouver, former YC founder, and totally down to explore this as a next startup idea. Reply below and I can share my email. :)
all very cool because of the use of the word crypto which has great marketing but really what we are talking about is a mix of decentralized databases and decentralized currencies. Doesnt sound quite as cool if put like that...
Worth mentioning is Fabrica, a platform to enable super quick and inexpensive real estate transactions using the blockchain [0].
Disclaimer: I have shares in the company and I was a co-founder long time ago.
[0]: https://www.fabrica.land/
Disclaimer: I have shares in the company and I was a co-founder long time ago.
[0]: https://www.fabrica.land/
I cited something extremely relevant (a platform that uses blockchain to digitize real estate), and correctly disclaim that I am involved, and you downvoted me.
I would have appreciated a comment and/or a reason for the downvote.
I would have appreciated a comment and/or a reason for the downvote.
If you're actually in good faith confused on the downvotes I think it's because people are so sick of hearing and reading people shilling their pet "blockchain for X" company/idea/coin
Maybe you're right. But:
1) I was involved, I am no longer involved, despite, as mentioned, I still have a vested interest in the company.
2) We had an opportunity to do an ICO in 2017/2018, and we didn't, because we've been sick of the crypto bullshit long before most others have been, and because we wanted to build a serious business, not a scam.
3) It's actually a clever way to use the Blockchain for something useful (transactions as public proof, and tokens as unique identifiers that hold property of a trust, all perfectly compatible with the existing legal structure).
I think it's unfair to quickly downvote someone just because of a general sentiment. I was trying to contribute to the conversation, and I also had a disclaimer of my involvement with the company I was citing.
Anyway. I'll just keep disagreeing with the few that decided to downvote me.
1) I was involved, I am no longer involved, despite, as mentioned, I still have a vested interest in the company.
2) We had an opportunity to do an ICO in 2017/2018, and we didn't, because we've been sick of the crypto bullshit long before most others have been, and because we wanted to build a serious business, not a scam.
3) It's actually a clever way to use the Blockchain for something useful (transactions as public proof, and tokens as unique identifiers that hold property of a trust, all perfectly compatible with the existing legal structure).
I think it's unfair to quickly downvote someone just because of a general sentiment. I was trying to contribute to the conversation, and I also had a disclaimer of my involvement with the company I was citing.
Anyway. I'll just keep disagreeing with the few that decided to downvote me.
Or maybe they're just eating each other
> Certificates, for example cryptographic proofs that some particular individual is a resident of the city, could be done on-chain for added verifiability and security (eg. if such certificates are issued on-chain, it would become obvious if a large number of false certificates are issued). This can be used by all kinds of local-government-issued certificates.
He does point out latter how does could probably not be decentralised 100% due to legal requirements.
We already have a working solution for this problem in the PKI World - Cert Transparency. It works, is somewhat decentralised and has worked really well. Doesn’t need a blockchain.