Making a vague reference to something isn't an answer, nor is a random link and a "look here", especially when the link doesn't provide the answer.
And the fact you don't understand that line is the proof you don't know enough about traditional contracts to be able to compare them to smart contracts.
Seriously.... you've just done more to prove to me that you crypto folks are generally just ignorant of real world issues.
> you've just done more to prove to me that you crypto folks are generally just ignorant of real world issues.
I didn't know I was supposed to "prove" anything to you or handhold you on reading even the basics of the available documentation. All I have to say is your loss for not making the effort on your own and being so negative and combative. Good luck sir.
You chastise me above for "the site sure doesn't in any reasonable nor concise manner" and then you do something even more silly. Oh the hypocrisy. At least I don't say something rude like "educate yourself."
I'll end my replies here. This is a circular non-productive 'conversation'. It is clear reading your past comments here that everything is negative from you, which is really strange to me. Seriously, have a great day, but I'm done.
The definition for the word encumbrance is literally the opening line and is the exact issue at hand that you refuse to address.
To quote it:
"Encumbrance means any charge, claim, community property interest, pledge, condition, equitable interest, lien (statutory or other), option, security interest, mortgage, easement, encroachment, right of way, right of first refusal, or restriction of any kind, including any restriction on use, voting, transfer, receipt of income or exercise of any other attribute of ownership."
How does AAVE or any other smart contracts ensure there are no outside encumbrances?
It has to use human third parties and pay those fees, on top of the SC fees.
Really, you're just proving to me that folks promoting this garbage are childish, ignorant and baseleslly arrogant.
And BTW, You are the one running in circles. I've been asking you the same question without getting an answer for several comments now...
Any asset Off Chain must be validated Off Chain thereby adding external costs, which from my napkin math suggest the total costs would exceed traditional alternatives.
And that's without even addressing actually checking for encumberance of the asset, which then makes the whole thing no different than traditional contracts except for much higher costs, an inability to readily modify without significant expense (if at all), and more.
Without checking for encumberance Off chain the entire value proposition of an SC is a joke, as what the code says doesn't matter when a preexisting encumberance applies. (Ed: This applies to on chain assets as well)
And if you're going to say it's not for off chain assets then all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained.
> all your saying is that one essentially can only use existing crypto to secure a crypto loan, which undermine the point of the loan ever being obtained
Pretty sure my loans are perfectly not undermined.
All you're doing now is acting childish afaict, which just reinforces the view you've given of your position being based in immaturity, ignorance and idiocy.
Reread the thread and address the issue explicitly stated or just stop and accept your position is a failed one.
Oh, I see, you just want a hostile battle and don't want to do any sort of actual conversation around knowledge you refuse to learn on your own.
> "proves the collateral exists" means who validates the asset doesn't have a standard run of the mill contract/lien/etc?
I don't understand this line at all.