6 ms·
The block chain is good in so far as it is useful. I'm seeing a whole bunch of people deploy it where anonymous trust is not a requirement. They're just needles
by osrec 9y ago
The block chain is good in so far as it is useful. I'm seeing a whole bunch of people deploy it where anonymous trust is not a requirement. They're just needlessly increasing the costs of the networks they create. It's a bit of hype that will surely subside. Not saying it's not useful - just not for everything under the sun!
- drcode 9y agoYou make it sound like having an open system for timestamped records with support for highly complex permissions validation with a deep audit trail that is resistant to fraud and posthoc record tampering has no utility beyond buying drugs....
- aaron-lebo 9y agoThey criticized blockchain, but still said it was useful. They didn't act like it had no utility, that's a strawman. When I see IBM advertising blockchain in the middle of football games to an audience who has no fucking clue what that means, or how little it is used in production, I know it's hype. The blockchain is a useful protocol, but what you are describing doesn't even require it, just a few trusted sources, which blockchains have to fall back to, anyway, with trusted oracles. Their larger point might be that as much a blockchain advocates love it, there's not a single mainstream application outside of Bitcoin 8 years later. Someone yesterday compared it to the hype behind torrents changing everything, though torrents might be more practically useful.
- maxfurman 9y agoTorrents are used by Blizzard, among others, to distribute updates for their games
- JackFr 9y agoYou can buy drugs with git?
- JorgeGT 9y agoGiven the complexity of git commands, I cannot rule it out.
- empath75 9y agoIndirectly. You get paid for committing code, after all.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- lloyd-christmas 9y agogit pull pull pass
- pdpi 9y agoWe've had all of that for aeons. The only really novel thing Bitcoin brought to the table was the consensus algorithm (which is in no way, shape, or form a complaint — it's precisely what it should be) — but that consensus algorithm only works for currencies (for a sufficiently loose definition of currency that allows for the current fees and delays). Nakamoto consensus solves the double-spend problem, but only if mining blocks gives you a reward that's denominated in the same currency as the transactions you're mining.
- DennisP 9y agoEthereum uses essentially the same consensus algorithm for lots of things besides currencies.
- pdpi 9y agoMy definition of "doesn't work" here is: the security guarantees that the consensus protocol provides stop applying. Just because nobody has found it worthwhile to attack Ethereum "not a currency" stuff yet doesn't mean that it's safe.
- DennisP 9y agoEthereum's consensus model makes the same security guarantees for contract operation that it does for the built-in currency; given the value of Ethereum-based tokens there's a very large bounty for anyone able to poke a hole in that. Of course this is only a guarantee that contracts will run as written, not that they're written correctly. There's a lot of research on applying high-assurance techniques to contract development but it'll be a while before that stuff is ready for production.
- drcode 9y agoOP talked about "Blockchain" not bitcoin specifically (which has more limited use cases, but that's not relevant to this thread)
- ska 9y ago
- osrec 9y agoI don't think I made it sound that way, but if I did, it was in error. I understand the implications of the technology, but my issue is with firms applying it to literally everything, even when it's not cogent to do so.
- UncleMeat 9y agoJust use git then? A number of auditable ledgers exist w/o decentralization.
- southpawflo 9y agowith today's privacy and security concerns, for any new project, would starting from a position of anonymous trust despite the increased resource requirements really be a downside? I ask as an outsider to the industry. I do understand that blockchain tech doesn't need to be slapped onto everything, but from my perspective it seems the benefits generally outweigh the detriments - at least so far
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- betterunix2 9y agoThe resource requirements are a massive downside, but they are only necessary for the "permissionless" model. In almost all cases it is equally good to use a permissioned model where the parties are all identified in advance, which completely avoids the need for proof of work (because there are no sybil attacks when everyone has a known and fixed identity).