7 ms·

Thank you for your comment. Looking at all the doubt and hate about blockchain & cryptocurrencies on HN lately, I personally can't help but wonder where have al

by zilian 9y ago

Thank you for your comment. Looking at all the doubt and hate about blockchain & cryptocurrencies on HN lately, I personally can't help but wonder where have all innovators gone.

endymi0n 9y ago
Confirmation Bias at work. You're invested, so you want it to take off. Yet none of those blockchain enthusiasts could tell me a single USP that blockchains had over storage in a normal database on any concrete use case, with the sole exception of cryptocurrencies. And the reason is simple: all those applications have none of the properties and problems the blockchain solves - which is an elegant niche solution tailor made for mutually mistrusting entities working together on a distributed ledger. That barely exists in real life. Centralized systems are what you want in 99% of cases. They're more reliable, better controlled, have infinitely more throughput and usually, you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions (fraud, mistakes, etc.) Sure, you could store anything in a blockchain. Sure, something yada yada blockchain could "replace Netflix". It's just that apparently nobody can tell me _why_. My only concern right now is that I can't short Blockchain technology because the relation of hype to actual usefulness and potential is so incredibly large that it will drag a big chunk of the tech sector down the drain. In stark contrast to AI which is just as hyped, but isn't just supposed to "change everything" since years - it's actually starting to do so on a spectacular timeline.
- bpicolo 9y ago
  > you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions Yup, refunds are the basis of customer service.
  - josh2600 9y ago
    Ok look, I have a stake here because I run a crypto fund but let's just be clear: in the beginning of money, refunds involved going to the person you wanted a refund from and demanding the return of your currency. It's not that different from how crypto works right now except that the transaction is much more provable. Over time, institutions that look a lot like banks will provide the refund abstraction on top of crypto, BUT that doesn't change the value of an immutable changelog for money. Think of it this way, if you were building money for computers, it would have atomic transfers and a changelog. Those properties, it turns out, are very useful, mostly because people dramatically underestimate how many transactions are between semi-untrusted parties (I would argue it is the majority of transactions). Yes, right now, crypto is a step backwards for many transactions, but that's because institutions that would traditionally support currency can't properly model the risk so only the brave entrepreneurs who accept unbounded risk participate. Over time, like any technology, traditional institutions will accept it as the regulatory regime becomes more clear. The analogy to the beginning of the internet is obvious (the only real question is whether governments decide to ban it).
    - chrisco255 9y ago
      Refunds not a big deal and no different than paying cash. Online stores have a reputation and reviews so if there's retailers out there scamming people the internet will find out quickly.
  - HillRat 9y ago
    To be fair -- and I'm no blockchain booster -- transactional rollbacks should be modeled as separate operations and replacement transactions on an immutable log (or loggish thing, anyway). You can use bitemporal tracking to model invalid belief states, but your system should never be allowed to drop transactions.
    - prostoalex 9y ago
      Yep, they generally are in modern payment systems. A chargeback is a separate transaction that has to be initiated, submitted and paid for.
- sergiosgc 9y ago
  > Yet none of those blockchain enthusiasts could tell me a single USP that blockchains had over storage in a normal database on any concrete use case, with the sole exception of cryptocurrencies. > And the reason is simple: all those applications have none of the properties and problems the blockchain solves - which is an elegant niche solution tailor made for mutually mistrusting entities working together on a distributed ledger. That barely exists in real life. > Centralized systems are what you want in 99% of cases. They're more reliable, better controlled, have infinitely more throughput and usually, you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions (fraud, mistakes, etc.) While we're high on the hype cycle for blockchains and crypto currencies, it's easy to find actors that do not understand the limitations of the technology. It has heavy drawbacks when compared to centralized systems. That is true, I agree with that part of your comment. What your position misses, are the huge unrealized upsides of blockchain tech. It's natural, because they are potential, unrealized and, as such, difficult to defend. Let me try my hand at it anyway, as high level as possible so we don't get lost in use case minutiae. Blockchain allows you to eschew the need for a single central trusted party. This allows for fluid ecosystems, removing the need for a monopoly/oligopoly in scenarios that today require one. This removal of a market deficiency is known to increase innovation, through competition. If you find it difficult to imagine use scenarios for blockchain, look for deficient markets caused by the need for centralized trust: monopolies and oligopolies. In each, you'll find an opportunity to create a more competitive market through blockchain.
  - root_axis 9y ago
    > If you find it difficult to imagine use scenarios for blockchain, look for deficient markets caused by the need for centralized trust: monopolies and oligopolies. In each, you'll find an opportunity to create a more competitive market through blockchain. How? This is just vague handwaving that doesn't actually explain how the blockchain can solve real problems. As of now, bitcoin is the only demonstrable use case for a blockchain, and while I don't think anyone could convincingly argue that bitcoin is useless, it's not going to cause an economic revolution like the advent of the internet.
    - wildsatchmo 9y ago
- smokeyj 9y ago
  Most of the practical use cases are illegal developed nations (because fundraising should be guarded for the elite). But there will be a developing nation that adopts the token economy, allowing for global crypto liquidity to flood in and be put to productive use. Stocks, bonds, notes, everything will be tradable on the global marketplace without KYC AML garbage. Just the free flow of capital to where it's needed most.
- zilian 9y ago
  What on earth tells you I'm "invested" ;) ? I'm just curious. I still don't know why you're so vindicative, I don't like either when companies use the buzzword "blockchain" in a wrong way.
TeMPOraL 9y ago
> where have all innovators gone They have enough sense to see that blockchain ecosystem is 1% innovation, 99% hype.
- zilian 9y ago
  Just dig in the interesting 1% then. What do you think was teh internet back then ? Dot-com bubble anyone ?
prostoalex 9y ago
Blockchain is only innovative if you ignore the decades of DBMS development. There are very few cases where distributed consensus is needed (versus master/slave relationship), and even those cases can be served by a variety of consensus protocols with better throughput and performance characteristics.

by zilian 9y ago

Thank you for your comment. Looking at all the doubt and hate about blockchain & cryptocurrencies on HN lately, I personally can't help but wonder where have all innovators gone.

endymi0n 9y ago

Confirmation Bias at work. You're invested, so you want it to take off. Yet none of those blockchain enthusiasts could tell me a single USP that blockchains had over storage in a normal database on any concrete use case, with the sole exception of cryptocurrencies. And the reason is simple: all those applications have none of the properties and problems the blockchain solves - which is an elegant niche solution tailor made for mutually mistrusting entities working together on a distributed ledger. That barely exists in real life. Centralized systems are what you want in 99% of cases. They're more reliable, better controlled, have infinitely more throughput and usually, you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions (fraud, mistakes, etc.) Sure, you could store anything in a blockchain. Sure, something yada yada blockchain could "replace Netflix". It's just that apparently nobody can tell me _why_. My only concern right now is that I can't short Blockchain technology because the relation of hype to actual usefulness and potential is so incredibly large that it will drag a big chunk of the tech sector down the drain. In stark contrast to AI which is just as hyped, but isn't just supposed to "change everything" since years - it's actually starting to do so on a spectacular timeline.

bpicolo 9y ago
> you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions Yup, refunds are the basis of customer service.
- josh2600 9y ago
  Ok look, I have a stake here because I run a crypto fund but let's just be clear: in the beginning of money, refunds involved going to the person you wanted a refund from and demanding the return of your currency. It's not that different from how crypto works right now except that the transaction is much more provable. Over time, institutions that look a lot like banks will provide the refund abstraction on top of crypto, BUT that doesn't change the value of an immutable changelog for money. Think of it this way, if you were building money for computers, it would have atomic transfers and a changelog. Those properties, it turns out, are very useful, mostly because people dramatically underestimate how many transactions are between semi-untrusted parties (I would argue it is the majority of transactions). Yes, right now, crypto is a step backwards for many transactions, but that's because institutions that would traditionally support currency can't properly model the risk so only the brave entrepreneurs who accept unbounded risk participate. Over time, like any technology, traditional institutions will accept it as the regulatory regime becomes more clear. The analogy to the beginning of the internet is obvious (the only real question is whether governments decide to ban it).
  - chrisco255 9y ago
    Refunds not a big deal and no different than paying cash. Online stores have a reputation and reviews so if there's retailers out there scamming people the internet will find out quickly.
- HillRat 9y ago
  To be fair -- and I'm no blockchain booster -- transactional rollbacks should be modeled as separate operations and replacement transactions on an immutable log (or loggish thing, anyway). You can use bitemporal tracking to model invalid belief states, but your system should never be allowed to drop transactions.
  - prostoalex 9y ago
    Yep, they generally are in modern payment systems. A chargeback is a separate transaction that has to be initiated, submitted and paid for.
sergiosgc 9y ago
> Yet none of those blockchain enthusiasts could tell me a single USP that blockchains had over storage in a normal database on any concrete use case, with the sole exception of cryptocurrencies. > And the reason is simple: all those applications have none of the properties and problems the blockchain solves - which is an elegant niche solution tailor made for mutually mistrusting entities working together on a distributed ledger. That barely exists in real life. > Centralized systems are what you want in 99% of cases. They're more reliable, better controlled, have infinitely more throughput and usually, you want to be able to roll back transactions under certain conditions (fraud, mistakes, etc.) While we're high on the hype cycle for blockchains and crypto currencies, it's easy to find actors that do not understand the limitations of the technology. It has heavy drawbacks when compared to centralized systems. That is true, I agree with that part of your comment. What your position misses, are the huge unrealized upsides of blockchain tech. It's natural, because they are potential, unrealized and, as such, difficult to defend. Let me try my hand at it anyway, as high level as possible so we don't get lost in use case minutiae. Blockchain allows you to eschew the need for a single central trusted party. This allows for fluid ecosystems, removing the need for a monopoly/oligopoly in scenarios that today require one. This removal of a market deficiency is known to increase innovation, through competition. If you find it difficult to imagine use scenarios for blockchain, look for deficient markets caused by the need for centralized trust: monopolies and oligopolies. In each, you'll find an opportunity to create a more competitive market through blockchain.
- root_axis 9y ago
  > If you find it difficult to imagine use scenarios for blockchain, look for deficient markets caused by the need for centralized trust: monopolies and oligopolies. In each, you'll find an opportunity to create a more competitive market through blockchain. How? This is just vague handwaving that doesn't actually explain how the blockchain can solve real problems. As of now, bitcoin is the only demonstrable use case for a blockchain, and while I don't think anyone could convincingly argue that bitcoin is useless, it's not going to cause an economic revolution like the advent of the internet.
  - wildsatchmo 9y ago
smokeyj 9y ago
Most of the practical use cases are illegal developed nations (because fundraising should be guarded for the elite). But there will be a developing nation that adopts the token economy, allowing for global crypto liquidity to flood in and be put to productive use. Stocks, bonds, notes, everything will be tradable on the global marketplace without KYC AML garbage. Just the free flow of capital to where it's needed most.
zilian 9y ago
What on earth tells you I'm "invested" ;) ? I'm just curious. I still don't know why you're so vindicative, I don't like either when companies use the buzzword "blockchain" in a wrong way.

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> where have all innovators gone They have enough sense to see that blockchain ecosystem is 1% innovation, 99% hype.

zilian 9y ago
Just dig in the interesting 1% then. What do you think was teh internet back then ? Dot-com bubble anyone ?

prostoalex 9y ago

Blockchain is only innovative if you ignore the decades of DBMS development. There are very few cases where distributed consensus is needed (versus master/slave relationship), and even those cases can be served by a variety of consensus protocols with better throughput and performance characteristics.