Conceptual model for asynchronous physical exchanges

Hello,

MarryWithBTC :

Thanks for your message

Also, i want to clarify something, i sometimes struggle to express my ideas clearly in english, especially in writing. Some of the words i use can be a bit approximate.

Ideally, the initial goal was to remove trust entirely, but i cannot claim that i have fully achieved that in my model. That would not be accurate. In practice, trust is still present, but it is shifted—for example toward sensors and the system itself, rather than relying on human actors. The idea was first to propose this model and then, by working on it with others, try to push it much further.

d5000 :

Thank you for your feedback and for taking the time to reflect on this

Regarding your initial question “are you really sure you need a blockchain?” in my case, the blockchain is not intended solely as a tool to solve the double-spend problem in a monetary sense. It is primarily envisioned as a neutral coordination layer, difficult to falsify, in an environment where multiple actors must interact without any of them becoming a point of control.

I understand your point that in some protocols like Bisq, not every step needs to correspond to a global on-chain state. Signed, timestamped, and properly chained messages can be sufficient in certain contexts. However, my objective here is different: I aim to avoid relying solely on a shared, signed communication history, because the model involves physical actions, lockers, logistics, and execution conditions that go beyond simple peer-to-peer interaction.

This is also why i do not want the logistics operator to be the entity that directly issues commands to open or lock the locker (as in such a case, they could potentially misuse the system or even steal, which would represent a significant risk). In that scenario, they effectively become a trusted third party or, at the very least, a central point of control something the model is specifically designed to avoid. Instead, my goal is for such actions to be derived from a neutral cryptographic and protocol-based framework, rather than from discretionary human decisions.

Regarding the idea of using an existing blockchain for a specific step, i understand the argument, but my intention is not only to anchor a piece of data at a given moment. The goal is to explore a dedicated coordination layer capable of carrying states, proofs, and execution conditions that are intrinsic to the protocol itself, rather than simply writing a trace into an existing chain. I would also like this layer to serve as a support for anchoring data in a tamper-resistant and immutable way, without overloading monetary blockchains that are not necessarily designed for such use cases.

Finally, concerning the incentive mechanism, i agree that this is a major challenge for any non-monetary blockchain. It is indeed one of the key aspects of the model. The idea i am exploring is that incentives would come directly from real usage: fees generated by asynchronous physical exchanges would be distributed between the nodes participating in coordination and the logistics operators involved in execution.

So in summary, i understand your point, but in my approach the blockchain is not used “for its own sake”: it is there because i aim to remove as many human trust assumptions as possible in a system that is not purely digital, but also physical. The broader goal is also to give control back to nodes and therefore to individuals rather than to centralized entities, whether institutional or state-based. In that sense, i see non-monetary blockchains as an important direction to explore in order to strengthen sovereignty, decentralization, and user autonomy.

I would also be curious to hear your thoughts on a broader question: what do you think about non-monetary blockchains in general? Do you see a real use case for them in the future?