6 ms·

Hi, it's the author here. > This really doesn't make any sense. Disagree. Below, I respond to each of your points. > Blockchains aren't immutable, they are j

by trentmc 10y ago

Hi, it's the author here. > This really doesn't make any sense. Disagree. Below, I respond to each of your points. > Blockchains aren't immutable, they are just expensive to mutate. Agreed; very little is truly absolutely immutable. It's all shades of grey. I actually prefer the word "tamper-resistant" and I usually say that next to the "immutable" definition, such as in the first paragraph of https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper. But "immutable" makes for a good shorthand, especially because that's the label that the community uses. > Blockchains aren't centralized. Oops, that was a typo. I meant to say "decentralized". Fixed it. (That was a pretty big oops!) > Blockchains didn't introduce audit trails ... Correct. > ... [status quo] require[s] trust in the central authority Exactly. And it's crucial to note that once you don't have to trust a central authority to store your audit trail, you have a way more trustworthy audit trail that improves many applications and unlocks new ones. > The author has a poor understanding of both AI and blockchain technology ... "treatise on altcoins" Disagree. First, you don't need an "altcoin" to have a blockchain. To understand of what's special about blockchains, you first have to understand what already exists for distributed databases, then what the delta is. Second, consensus in a distributed database has been around for decades; Satoshi did not invent it. Lamport laid down much of the theory for FT and BFT consensus in 1982. What Bitcoin brought forward, in addition to BFT-ish consensus, was Sybil tolerance (addressing attack-of-the-clones). Third, as for my understanding of AI: I've been doing it professionally since the late 90s; here are my publications: http://trent.st/publications http://trent.st/publications. Doing AI in the 90s was one of the least popular things one could possibly do, so I certainly didn't do it for the hype. > vaguely proposing using a blockchain as a mass datastore (with ownership labels) Obviously I gave much more specific proposals than that. I have other writings that dive into more detail on some of the use cases, such as an IP registry [1] and for AI DAOs [2]. [1] https://medium.com/ipdb-blog/a-decentralized-content-registry-for-the-decentralized-web-99cf1335291f https://medium.com/ipdb-blog/a-decentralized-content-registr... [2] https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ai-daos-and-three-paths-to-get-there-cfa0a4cc37b8 https://medium.com/@trentmc0/ai-daos-and-three-paths-to-get-...

pdpi 10y ago
> First, you don't need an "altcoin" to have a blockchain. Hmm, you're treading on thin ice here. What exactly do you mean by a "blockchain", then? I tend to work on the assumption that people are talking about something closer to the whole Satoshi consensus stack on top of hashed linked lists (the _actual_ blockchain), rather than just the hashed linked list data structure. Which segues into -- Satoshi consensus was designed against a stringent set of requirements, and the security model for the algorithm he devised absolutely demands a miner reward of some sort that's denominated in the same currency as that being used in transactions (in those circumstances, double spend attacks can be proved irrational once a transaction is deep enough inside the chain) I'm not saying you're flat-out wrong, but you do need to specify which properties of Satoshi consensus you are willing to discard to make that statement true.
- trentmc 10y ago
  Throw a rock in the blockchain space and you'll find a different definition of blockchains, or what it means for one thing to be a blockchain or not. It doesn't really help anyone to argue for hours on end over this, when it's largely a matter of opinion. To me, what's more interesting is to identify what are the new characteristics (in terms of benefits) that blockchains have, above and beyond traditional distributed databases; which in turn unlock new applications or improve existing applications. To me, those characteristics are: decentralized, immutable, assets; I describe them in the article, and also in more detail in https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper.
  - pdpi 10y ago
    > To me, those characteristics are: decentralized, immutable, assets; How do you achieve fully trustless decentralisation without the currency aspect, while still being resilient to sybil attacks? Or are you willing to sacrifice truslessness? In which case, how are you defining decentralisation?
    - trentmc 10y ago
      I define "decentralized" as "no single entity owns or controls". It can be further distinguished with "server-based decentralization" and "server-free decentralization" [1]. You only need to be Sybil tolerant if you want your validating nodes to be anonymous. There's certainly some applications where that's useful. But it's not a requirement for being decentralized. (Some will argue otherwise, and that's ok; once again it depends how you define "decentralized"; my approach is about what benefits come to the application.) [1] https://blog.bigchaindb.com/the-dcs-triangle-5ce0e9e0f1dc https://blog.bigchaindb.com/the-dcs-triangle-5ce0e9e0f1dc
kordless 10y ago
> Agreed; very little is truly absolutely immutable Dissonance leads to conflicted statements. Parsing conflicted statements often leads to dissonance. Tread carefully. The only absolute truth is that I exist. That fact, while I'm observing it, is immutable. The cost of this immutability is my life, or my life's suffering in aggregate. The fact my life will end at some point means that, when viewed in aggregate, all existences are mutable at some point. Which means that nothing is permanent, which means your statement is in conflict. Conflicted statements may be parsed and proved wrong. It is my opinion your thoughts here are valuable and should not be proved wrong until explored fully. As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable. It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system.
- sgt101 10y ago
  >As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement; it's a statement of rational behaviour - I give you that, but there is no bar to an irrational actor altering the blockchain purely out of spite or caprice - possibly incurring mortal harm in the process. >It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Again - this is not a logically correct statement. canbemutaable(blockchain) -> immutableNow(blochain) how so? >Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system. Can you explain what "practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system" is and why it's wrong?
  - kordless 10y ago
    > > As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable > I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement I'd love to see a logical argument presenting how a hypothetical irrational actor can alter a blockchain of significant value without either a hypothetical attack vector or a few billion years compute time.
SkyMarshal 10y ago
>Disagree. First, you don't need an "altcoin" to have a blockchain. In a public permissionless blockchain the token is a system-native item of value used to compensate miners/stakers/validators for securing the system. If you remove it from the architecture then you need a compelling answer to the question, how is the system secured? I haven't heard such an answer yet, though it may be out there and I just haven't come across it yet. Have you? Essentially what I'm looking for is an explanation of a tokenless security-model in similar depth as this explanation of Bitcoin's security model: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-security-model-deep-dive/ http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-security-model-deep-dive/ Haven't seen that yet.
- trentmc 10y ago
  To me, incentives can be intrinsic (built into the system) or extrinsic (outside the system). Each has pros and cons. Bitcoin is intrinsic, based on mining reward and tx fees. Traditional private blockchains are extrinsic, where the folks running the network are incentivized to pay for hardware based on cost savings, higher profits, etc, ie something extrinsic to the network itself. IPDB is also extrinsic where the folks running the network participate because they care about the future decentralized internet, and their costs of running a node are covered by SaaS-style transaction fees.

by trentmc 10y ago

pdpi 10y ago

> First, you don't need an "altcoin" to have a blockchain. Hmm, you're treading on thin ice here. What exactly do you mean by a "blockchain", then? I tend to work on the assumption that people are talking about something closer to the whole Satoshi consensus stack on top of hashed linked lists (the _actual_ blockchain), rather than just the hashed linked list data structure. Which segues into -- Satoshi consensus was designed against a stringent set of requirements, and the security model for the algorithm he devised absolutely demands a miner reward of some sort that's denominated in the same currency as that being used in transactions (in those circumstances, double spend attacks can be proved irrational once a transaction is deep enough inside the chain) I'm not saying you're flat-out wrong, but you do need to specify which properties of Satoshi consensus you are willing to discard to make that statement true.

trentmc 10y ago
Throw a rock in the blockchain space and you'll find a different definition of blockchains, or what it means for one thing to be a blockchain or not. It doesn't really help anyone to argue for hours on end over this, when it's largely a matter of opinion. To me, what's more interesting is to identify what are the new characteristics (in terms of benefits) that blockchains have, above and beyond traditional distributed databases; which in turn unlock new applications or improve existing applications. To me, those characteristics are: decentralized, immutable, assets; I describe them in the article, and also in more detail in https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper https://bigchaindb.com/whitepaper.
- pdpi 10y ago
  > To me, those characteristics are: decentralized, immutable, assets; How do you achieve fully trustless decentralisation without the currency aspect, while still being resilient to sybil attacks? Or are you willing to sacrifice truslessness? In which case, how are you defining decentralisation?
  - trentmc 10y ago
    I define "decentralized" as "no single entity owns or controls". It can be further distinguished with "server-based decentralization" and "server-free decentralization" [1]. You only need to be Sybil tolerant if you want your validating nodes to be anonymous. There's certainly some applications where that's useful. But it's not a requirement for being decentralized. (Some will argue otherwise, and that's ok; once again it depends how you define "decentralized"; my approach is about what benefits come to the application.) [1] https://blog.bigchaindb.com/the-dcs-triangle-5ce0e9e0f1dc https://blog.bigchaindb.com/the-dcs-triangle-5ce0e9e0f1dc

kordless 10y ago

> Agreed; very little is truly absolutely immutable Dissonance leads to conflicted statements. Parsing conflicted statements often leads to dissonance. Tread carefully. The only absolute truth is that I exist. That fact, while I'm observing it, is immutable. The cost of this immutability is my life, or my life's suffering in aggregate. The fact my life will end at some point means that, when viewed in aggregate, all existences are mutable at some point. Which means that nothing is permanent, which means your statement is in conflict. Conflicted statements may be parsed and proved wrong. It is my opinion your thoughts here are valuable and should not be proved wrong until explored fully. As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable. It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system.

sgt101 10y ago
>As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement; it's a statement of rational behaviour - I give you that, but there is no bar to an irrational actor altering the blockchain purely out of spite or caprice - possibly incurring mortal harm in the process. >It may turn mutable someday, but that doesn't mean it's not immutable right now. Again - this is not a logically correct statement. canbemutaable(blockchain) -> immutableNow(blochain) how so? >Anyone arguing contrary to these evident facts is practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system. Can you explain what "practicing/exploiting inefficiencies in the system" is and why it's wrong?
- kordless 10y ago
  > > As long as the cost of changing the blockchain is higher than the return on changing it, the chain remains immutable > I'm sorry, but that is not a logically correct statement I'd love to see a logical argument presenting how a hypothetical irrational actor can alter a blockchain of significant value without either a hypothetical attack vector or a few billion years compute time.

SkyMarshal 10y ago

>Disagree. First, you don't need an "altcoin" to have a blockchain. In a public permissionless blockchain the token is a system-native item of value used to compensate miners/stakers/validators for securing the system. If you remove it from the architecture then you need a compelling answer to the question, how is the system secured? I haven't heard such an answer yet, though it may be out there and I just haven't come across it yet. Have you? Essentially what I'm looking for is an explanation of a tokenless security-model in similar depth as this explanation of Bitcoin's security model: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-security-model-deep-dive/ http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoins-security-model-deep-dive/ Haven't seen that yet.

trentmc 10y ago
To me, incentives can be intrinsic (built into the system) or extrinsic (outside the system). Each has pros and cons. Bitcoin is intrinsic, based on mining reward and tx fees. Traditional private blockchains are extrinsic, where the folks running the network are incentivized to pay for hardware based on cost savings, higher profits, etc, ie something extrinsic to the network itself. IPDB is also extrinsic where the folks running the network participate because they care about the future decentralized internet, and their costs of running a node are covered by SaaS-style transaction fees.