4 ms·

>Immutable peer-to-peer ledgers have numerous use-cases And that's why we have git. The only good bit is the Merkle trees, which were invented in 1979. ("Why

>Immutable peer-to-peer ledgers have numerous use-cases And that's why we have git. The only good bit is the Merkle trees, which were invented in 1979. ("Why yes, Mr Buzzwordsusceptible Uppermgt, we've been using blockchain technologies for years! Even before Bitcoin was invented!" i.e. git has Merkle trees in) Seriously, I've been looking into "business blockchain". There are zero use cases except for the Merkle trees. I commend to you this blog post from the R3 project: https://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-distributed-ledger-designed-for-financial-services https://www.r3cev.com/blog/2016/4/4/introducing-r3-corda-a-d... It details why every aspect of Bitcoin and its clones was designed to do the opposite of what financial services want. The punchline is that R3 Corda, their "blockchain" product, does not in its default configuration ... contain a blockchain.

reddytowns 10y ago
> And that's why we have git. The only good bit is the Merkle trees, which were invented in 1979. Explain this. How can git and merkle trees create an immutable peer-to-peer ledger? How can a peer, given ledgers A and B, know which one is fake and which is real?
- davidgerard 10y ago
  Not with Bitcoin or Ethereum, given the centralisation of mining. (I flatly do not believe all the pools are actually operated centrally.) Even the approximate solution becomes less useful as the currency recentralises. In literally all financial and legal regulations, the ultimate answer is "at some point you have to trust someone". This doesn't work out perfectly either (far from it), but it's an approximation that's proven more robust and usable for real world purposes than literally wasting electricity computing hashes.
  - reddytowns 10y ago
    That's not an answer. You implied that git and merkle trees can be used for p2p immutable ledgers. You have yet to show how that can happen. > In literally all financial and legal regulations, the ultimate answer is "at some point you have to trust someone". This doesn't work out perfectly either (far from it), but it's an approximation that's proven more robust and usable for real world purposes than literally wasting electricity computing hashes. That doesn't prove anything. The existing infrastructure has had thousands of years of a head start. Bitcoin has only existed for 6 years and ethereum only for 2. How can you expect this new technology to develop that quickly? The internet itself was started over 35 years ago and its potential still is yet to be determined, much less realized. Also, there are a lot of PoS currencies that don't use computation power to secure their blockchain. What is your rationale for dismissing them?
    - davidgerard 10y ago
      PoW's had six years to fail to overcome objections that were raised literally in 2008 in response to the white paper. PoS has no practical examples. I'm saying "nice idea but it hasn't worked out" and you're saying "but here's this other idea that hasn't worked out!"
      - reddytowns 10y ago
        What objections? What will occur if PoW fails to overcome them? What is it about, say bitshares, or say, dash which is partially based on dpos, that just hasn't worked out? What vague arguments you have! And on on top of the dubious arguments you previously proposed and failed to defend under simple questioning. Are you going to answer anything I asked or are going to go another round of you bringing up even more new arguments while abandoning your prior ones?

reddytowns 10y ago

> And that's why we have git. The only good bit is the Merkle trees, which were invented in 1979. Explain this. How can git and merkle trees create an immutable peer-to-peer ledger? How can a peer, given ledgers A and B, know which one is fake and which is real?

davidgerard 10y ago
Not with Bitcoin or Ethereum, given the centralisation of mining. (I flatly do not believe all the pools are actually operated centrally.) Even the approximate solution becomes less useful as the currency recentralises. In literally all financial and legal regulations, the ultimate answer is "at some point you have to trust someone". This doesn't work out perfectly either (far from it), but it's an approximation that's proven more robust and usable for real world purposes than literally wasting electricity computing hashes.
- reddytowns 10y ago
  That's not an answer. You implied that git and merkle trees can be used for p2p immutable ledgers. You have yet to show how that can happen. > In literally all financial and legal regulations, the ultimate answer is "at some point you have to trust someone". This doesn't work out perfectly either (far from it), but it's an approximation that's proven more robust and usable for real world purposes than literally wasting electricity computing hashes. That doesn't prove anything. The existing infrastructure has had thousands of years of a head start. Bitcoin has only existed for 6 years and ethereum only for 2. How can you expect this new technology to develop that quickly? The internet itself was started over 35 years ago and its potential still is yet to be determined, much less realized. Also, there are a lot of PoS currencies that don't use computation power to secure their blockchain. What is your rationale for dismissing them?
  - davidgerard 10y ago
    PoW's had six years to fail to overcome objections that were raised literally in 2008 in response to the white paper. PoS has no practical examples. I'm saying "nice idea but it hasn't worked out" and you're saying "but here's this other idea that hasn't worked out!"
    - reddytowns 10y ago
      What objections? What will occur if PoW fails to overcome them? What is it about, say bitshares, or say, dash which is partially based on dpos, that just hasn't worked out? What vague arguments you have! And on on top of the dubious arguments you previously proposed and failed to defend under simple questioning. Are you going to answer anything I asked or are going to go another round of you bringing up even more new arguments while abandoning your prior ones?