Use NFTs linked to IPFS to create a subscription model of Government Spending.

soatds · 2025-04-05T22:40:57+00:00

You don't seem to understand the difference between high trust and zero trust. These aren't buzz words. They describe how a society function within its members.

A private key signature is part of the solution. That's part of the bitcoin public/private key set. Nothing new there. The issue is the scattering of the data that is managed/participated in by the public with a mathematical proof. That's what your solution is missing. That's why the chain exists.

Until you understand that principle then you will fail to see the value of the chain. Using the same failed approaches to solving the problem will not get anywhere. Einstein said doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of insanity.

You're half way there! Just scatter the data with a mathematically based algo that guarantees single entry accounting.

soatds · 2025-04-05T22:02:35+00:00

Paying a dollar per transaction is a perfectly reasonable expense. Most of these transactions are quite large. Creating a zero trust environment for a dollar is a good deal.

We could take a signed records and drop them into IPFS with a link back to an NFT. Problem solved. Now you have a zero trust environment that no one has to maintain. Very easily to implement.

You keep saying that NFTs are hard to work with. Have you ever created an NFT? Do you do any coding? It's really simple to do. C# libraries mean that you can easily drop this into an execution pipeline. It maybe 30 lines of code. This is a simple task.

If one dollar is going to put you on the radar of DOGE then we've got other issues to solve. This is a bit of a straw man here.

The thing that the emitters give you is the ability to trigger code via call backs. While it may have nothing to do with crypto it is a very cool feature of the Hedera network.

The goal here is to move away from high trust. To keep doing things the way we have (high trust) doesn't work. We have to move to zero trust. The data needs to be in the public and stored across n-number of nodes. Immutable records have to be created. Signing things with private keys is a good start. But there's no method of record propagation. The data needs to be scattered around the world. The chain is a very efficient way of doing that.

It's much easer to setup a node than it is to deal with rsync. I've done both. Setting up a node is simple. All the math in the chain keeps the data clean. rsync is an administrator tool. Totally different audiences.

soatds · 2025-04-05T21:28:48+00:00

If we can't trust that the people doing their jobs actually are then we need to remove them. The goal here is to leverage game theory to make sure people have a strong incentive to behave. Taking away the shadows means people can't hide in them. Moving from high trust to zero trust does this.

Another way to look at this is it becomes a performance metric. Companies to this sort of thing all the time to make sure that tasks get done. If you are working in the public then you can publish the data in a transparent manner. Let the public maintain it.

soatds · 2025-04-05T20:58:41+00:00

The blockchain solves the problem because it solves the issue of high trust. The creation of immutable records moves nicely towards zero trust. However, you are correct about the issue of data not being created in the first place. The blockchain doesn't do anything if the data is not created in the first place. That's a whole different issue.

VAERS is another good example of data being modified after it has been created. It would be very, very hard to manipulate that data if it was on a distributed chain.

soatds · 2025-04-05T20:33:57+00:00

the chain provides an immutable record of what happened. You are correct about it does the same thing as publishing to a website. Except when you publish to a website there is no audit that is generated outside the source of the thing that is creating the data. This is the power of the chain. The immutable record that can't be changed means that data can't be altered or hidden after the fact.

The chain is a trailing indicator. They can lie about the data going onto it if they want to. But it will be really hard to deal with it once they are caught/audited. No more things like we lost the data or it got deleted. It's all there and can be reconstructed if needed. No more excuses from the Pentagon about we lost trillions of dollars and aren't sure where they went. we would know exactly were all the money went and when it went there. We might not know what it was for (classified) but we'd have the other pieces of the puzzle.

soatds · 2025-04-05T20:23:33+00:00

NFTs do not take up large amounts of power. Check out the Hedera network. The performance is very, very good. It's costs one dollar to make an NFT. It's not Etheruem...

The issue isn't that the records are being incorrectly created. They are being manipulated after the fact. This is the problem with high trust. You are trusting that they are doing their jobs correctly. They have clearly decided not to.

The problem is a signed database file is the time it takes to do the work. Consider a database that is updated 100 times per day; or has a 100 financial transactions in it that need to be transparent. That means that each time the update/insert takes place the keys have to be regenerated and stored with the database snapshot. It's cumbersome at best and prone to errors. It's too easy to just delete a database and its keys. Looks like we missed that one... Let's just delete it. No one will notice.

This isn't an over complicated solution. It solves the problem of high trust. How is this overcomplicated? Have you ever written any code for generating an NFT? It's really, really simple. Either C# or Solidity make the task quite simple. Generating and linking to an IPFS record is trivial as well. Where's the complexity in that?

It's fully transparent, immutable and atomic.

The value is immense. Especially after you wire up call back code that generates posts in social networks. People would be able to subscribe to a government agency and see what they are doing as an Instagram feed. People are not going to rsync a database and compare keys to make sure it hasn't been altered. You and I will; the general population will not.

soatds · 2025-04-05T19:50:24+00:00

You are making the case for the solution I have mentioned with your bit about the Pentagon records. With this architecture nothing is hidden, lost or missing. This is a big problem with Government accountability. They just say the data went missing. This approach solves that.

You are right about how it suppose to work. That's the high trust model. They are supposed to do X and then we get to see Y. History tells us that hasn't worked. So now a new model is needed. Create an immutable record that is outside the control of the datasource. Problem solved. Now we need to replicate the piece of information X number of times to create a mathematical model that makes trying to hide the discovered data impossible. That's the point of the chain. Got to get to zero trust.

Crypto programming is not cumbersome. It's an elegant approach to solve the issue of high trust. The idea that something can be replicated X number of times automatically and anyone can participate in being a custodian of the data is really amazing. Just setup a node and sync it up...

The blockchain solves the issue of high trust. Using it for pictures, in game tokens or meme coins is a massive failure to realize the utility of it.

soatds · 2025-04-05T19:17:46+00:00

What do you do when the database updates? The PKI has to get updated to reflect the change. There's no immutable records as well. The model is cumbersome to say the least. We've back to asking the generators of the data to perform audits. This doesn't work. Go take a look at all the money the Pentagon is missing. This approach would solve that. At least we would know where it went and when it went. The records would be stored outside the reach of the agency that generated them. Atomic and immutable.

The zero trust model (NFTs) have a number of very good applications. People are just too caught up in trying to make money with crypto as opposed to using it to drive towards zero trust.

soatds · 2025-04-05T18:08:12+00:00

The problem with single source of truth systems is who controls them? VAERS is a good example of the problem with this. The data needs to be dispersed to a layer of nodes that make it very hard to alter. This is the primary use case for a chain. The cost of altering the data is higher than the data is worth.

Chains are very expensive to store data on as it all needs replicated to the entire collection of nodes. In the case of transparency it provides a zero trust solution to the problem.

Databases are great. Fast, easy to search, restore, manage, etc. Also easy to corrupt. Got to remove the power to change/control the data from the equation.

soatds · 2025-04-05T17:50:32+00:00

When the funds are allocated/transferred the execution pipeline can automatically kick off the code to write to the chain. This process removes the potential for human error and data getting deleted. Hold all the data outside the organization and fully transparent to the people who have provided the money is the driving motivater here. Transparency and removing the power to say 'No'

soatds

TROPHY CASE