4 ms·

It gives you a publicly writable database that is only secured by people desiring to throw away large sums of computation in an environmentally unfriendly manne

by TheDong 11y ago

It gives you a publicly writable database that is only secured by people desiring to throw away large sums of computation in an environmentally unfriendly manner. Writes are also slow (10 mins...) and requires relatively high bandwidth and space to be used securely. There's no reason that AirBnb or Uber would want their database to be public, slower, and broken as soon as people lose interest in splitting up mining. In fact, the more valuable stuff goes on a block chain, the more people will want to break it in order to be able to manipulate that information. It's neat how the generals problem can work when the blockchain is for money. If it weren't for money, then why would people have an incentive to throw computation at it? To secure their AirBnb trip? If it's only AirBnb that has such an incentive, then suddenly it's a massively expensive enterprise to do so compared to running a normal distributed database that they control read/writes to.

natrius 11y ago
Blockchains can be built without 10 minute block times or wasteful proof-of-work for mining. You can just pick people the users trust to make blocks or use proof-of-stake mining. Blockchains are harder to break than most corporate databases. Reading up on Ethereum will answer most of your questions.
- TheDong 11y ago
  If your "blockchain" doesn't have a proof-of-work beyond trusted people, that's hardly different than a company publishing their database full of signed transactions. I'm aware that 10 minutes is a configurable number, but there's a reason it's as high as it is. I'm also familiar with Ethereum, and I still don't see it as better than a company-run database for anything like uber/airbnb/etc with a central company behind it. > Blockchains are harder to break than most corporate databases. Strange, Google and Amazon and many other sites have done just fine with databases (though there are exceptions like Ashley Madison etc) while there have already been real double-spends with the bitcoin Blockchain and numerous other issues. Proportional to usage, I'd say bitcoin has proven to be terrible compared to databases. So yeah, citation needed. Additionally, if you change your mining to be "people users trust", your security is now equivalent to corporate database security -- a lead pipe to the head to get a password in.
  - brighton36 11y ago
    There's precisely two (and maybe one) reasons where blockchains offer an economic efficiency. Immutability and/or regulatory arbitrage. When you can buy crack on Google and Amazon, then we'll no longer see an efficiency with blockchains.
  - natrius 11y ago
    > I'm also familiar with Ethereum, and I still don't see it as better than a company-run database for anything like uber/airbnb/etc with a central company behind it. It's better because no one is taking a cut off of the transactions that the network enables. No one has to approve a new application that uses the network, so every application can build on top of the network. The people own the network, not companies. This isn't just better, it's better to the degree that the Internet was better than private networks. That difference was world changing, and this one will be too. > Additionally, if you change your mining to be "people users trust", your security is now equivalent to corporate database security -- a lead pipe to the head to get a password in. Blockchains have programs that validate transactions. You'd have to get every validator to incorporate a fraudulent transaction. Hacking three financial institutions at the same time, for example, is pretty hard. Ten is even harder.
    - Jasper_ 11y ago
      That's a nice pipe dream. Unfortunately, it's not how Bitcoin has played out in the real world. The Bitcoin network has unfortunately not been owned by the people, but instead dominated by Chinese miners with ASICs. The current low-ball estimate based on public numbers is that Chinese miners account for ~70% of the hashrate -- see https://blockchain.info/pools https://blockchain.info/pools As the database gets larger and larger, less and less people can afford the disk space, bandwidth, and electricity, and they will be pushed out by people who can. The current scalability of Bitcoin, with its absolutely miniscule userbase, and incredibly high miner count, can barely scrape past 3 transactions per second. Attempts at trying to fix this have absolutely fractured the community. See BIP101 / BitcoinXT and the resulting blowout, especially on the /r/bitcoin subreddit. The security of Bitcoin is abysmal. There are major mining pools that don't even bother to validate the incoming transactions, since validating was slower than not validating, and more blocks means more money -- https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining Oh, how are these BTC miners getting money? BitPay's statistics say that $76 million, a disproportionate majority of their payouts, go to miners: http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1433561/bitcoin-merchants-mainstream-bitpay-cryptocurrency.jpg http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1433561/bitcoin-merchants-mai... So Bitcoin seems to be a vehicle for Chinese BTC miners to trade cheap electricity for VC money. Up until everything bursts, at least. It's also worth mentioning that if anybody was able to get these miners to collude, they could completely crash it if they wanted to. Bitcoin's security is largely based on no one entity having a majority of the network's power. Etherum has all of the same problems and none of the solutions. The official FAQ even says that we're going to see a tilted hashrate arms race ("AMD GPUs will be 'faster' than similarly priced NVIDIA GPUs") -- https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/how-to-help-secure-the-ethereum-network-faq https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/how-to-help-secure...
- brighton36 11y ago
  Proof of work is entirely required. Proof of stake is at best a pipe dream - read Andrew Poelstra's writing on the matter.
  - natrius 11y ago
    I disagree. https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...
mcintyre1994 11y ago
I agree with you on most points but the idea would be an Airbnb or Uber that don't take a large fee and make a large profit right? I know this is all wishful thinking stuff but it doesn't seem fair to say this is terrible because companies that exist to centralise transactions within a space won't want it. You're right that it doesn't seem to work without money though, and if it is a centralised service it's way more expensive than before. It all feels too theoretical when you get talking about multiple blockchains.

by TheDong 11y ago

natrius 11y ago

Blockchains can be built without 10 minute block times or wasteful proof-of-work for mining. You can just pick people the users trust to make blocks or use proof-of-stake mining. Blockchains are harder to break than most corporate databases. Reading up on Ethereum will answer most of your questions.

TheDong 11y ago
If your "blockchain" doesn't have a proof-of-work beyond trusted people, that's hardly different than a company publishing their database full of signed transactions. I'm aware that 10 minutes is a configurable number, but there's a reason it's as high as it is. I'm also familiar with Ethereum, and I still don't see it as better than a company-run database for anything like uber/airbnb/etc with a central company behind it. > Blockchains are harder to break than most corporate databases. Strange, Google and Amazon and many other sites have done just fine with databases (though there are exceptions like Ashley Madison etc) while there have already been real double-spends with the bitcoin Blockchain and numerous other issues. Proportional to usage, I'd say bitcoin has proven to be terrible compared to databases. So yeah, citation needed. Additionally, if you change your mining to be "people users trust", your security is now equivalent to corporate database security -- a lead pipe to the head to get a password in.
- brighton36 11y ago
  There's precisely two (and maybe one) reasons where blockchains offer an economic efficiency. Immutability and/or regulatory arbitrage. When you can buy crack on Google and Amazon, then we'll no longer see an efficiency with blockchains.
- natrius 11y ago
  > I'm also familiar with Ethereum, and I still don't see it as better than a company-run database for anything like uber/airbnb/etc with a central company behind it. It's better because no one is taking a cut off of the transactions that the network enables. No one has to approve a new application that uses the network, so every application can build on top of the network. The people own the network, not companies. This isn't just better, it's better to the degree that the Internet was better than private networks. That difference was world changing, and this one will be too. > Additionally, if you change your mining to be "people users trust", your security is now equivalent to corporate database security -- a lead pipe to the head to get a password in. Blockchains have programs that validate transactions. You'd have to get every validator to incorporate a fraudulent transaction. Hacking three financial institutions at the same time, for example, is pretty hard. Ten is even harder.
  - Jasper_ 11y ago
    That's a nice pipe dream. Unfortunately, it's not how Bitcoin has played out in the real world. The Bitcoin network has unfortunately not been owned by the people, but instead dominated by Chinese miners with ASICs. The current low-ball estimate based on public numbers is that Chinese miners account for ~70% of the hashrate -- see https://blockchain.info/pools https://blockchain.info/pools As the database gets larger and larger, less and less people can afford the disk space, bandwidth, and electricity, and they will be pushed out by people who can. The current scalability of Bitcoin, with its absolutely miniscule userbase, and incredibly high miner count, can barely scrape past 3 transactions per second. Attempts at trying to fix this have absolutely fractured the community. See BIP101 / BitcoinXT and the resulting blowout, especially on the /r/bitcoin subreddit. The security of Bitcoin is abysmal. There are major mining pools that don't even bother to validate the incoming transactions, since validating was slower than not validating, and more blocks means more money -- https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining https://bitcoin.org/en/alert/2015-07-04-spv-mining Oh, how are these BTC miners getting money? BitPay's statistics say that $76 million, a disproportionate majority of their payouts, go to miners: http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1433561/bitcoin-merchants-mainstream-bitpay-cryptocurrency.jpg http://d.ibtimes.co.uk/en/full/1433561/bitcoin-merchants-mai... So Bitcoin seems to be a vehicle for Chinese BTC miners to trade cheap electricity for VC money. Up until everything bursts, at least. It's also worth mentioning that if anybody was able to get these miners to collude, they could completely crash it if they wanted to. Bitcoin's security is largely based on no one entity having a majority of the network's power. Etherum has all of the same problems and none of the solutions. The official FAQ even says that we're going to see a tilted hashrate arms race ("AMD GPUs will be 'faster' than similarly priced NVIDIA GPUs") -- https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/how-to-help-secure-the-ethereum-network-faq https://forum.ethereum.org/discussion/197/how-to-help-secure...
brighton36 11y ago
Proof of work is entirely required. Proof of stake is at best a pipe dream - read Andrew Poelstra's writing on the matter.
- natrius 11y ago
  I disagree. https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-love-weak-subjectivity/ https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/11/25/proof-stake-learned-lov...

mcintyre1994 11y ago

I agree with you on most points but the idea would be an Airbnb or Uber that don't take a large fee and make a large profit right? I know this is all wishful thinking stuff but it doesn't seem fair to say this is terrible because companies that exist to centralise transactions within a space won't want it. You're right that it doesn't seem to work without money though, and if it is a centralised service it's way more expensive than before. It all feels too theoretical when you get talking about multiple blockchains.