3 ms·

I might be a bit grumpy, but I'm getting really sick of these type of pages. There's no information, just a smart-arse "NO". It doesn't help anyone and it's so

I might be a bit grumpy, but I'm getting really sick of these type of pages. There's no information, just a smart-arse "NO". It doesn't help anyone and it's so overdone I don't think it's funny anymore.

smcl 9y ago
It's not just a static bit of text, theres a decision tree you can traverse by answering some questions. They don't all lead to "NO" - my second attempt at random clicking took me to an answer like "probably"
- Fletch137 9y ago
  I'll be honest, as I saw the big "NO", I thought "not another one of these" and closed the tab. Perhaps seemingly showing a result before I've answered questions is an anti-pattern.
ThePadawan 9y ago
Note for future comment readers as confused as me: The post now points to the PDF of a 7-page paper which goes into some detail. Apparently, the original link led to a snarky "No", which isn't at all as flippant as what the paper states.
- Udik 9y ago
  Can somebody post the original link in a comment?
  - esnard 9y ago
    The link was http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ The PDF is linked in the footer.
- jaclaz 9y ago
  >The post now points to the PDF of a 7-page paper which goes into some detail. Thank you for the note, I missed the "original" link. Surely the "No" is more than a bit snarky, but it is not like the paper in itself contain that much of meaningful "news" or "ground-breaking" considerations, the conclusion (like it seems to me is happening very often on similar papers, i.e. a not-conclusion) is: "We conclude that depending on the application scenario, there are indeed valid use cases for each, permissionless and permissioned blockchains, and centralized databases that need to be determined carefully." It is not a "No", but it is a "it depends" that is not providing much more than the "No".
bmarkovic 9y ago
Actually I followed the questionnaire with rather bland requirements of a very vanilla distributed data-driven application and it said "Perhaps".
marcosdumay 9y ago
Honestly, if you are even wondering, then the answer is a clear "no". It's good to have people repeating this.

smcl 9y ago

It's not just a static bit of text, theres a decision tree you can traverse by answering some questions. They don't all lead to "NO" - my second attempt at random clicking took me to an answer like "probably"

Fletch137 9y ago
I'll be honest, as I saw the big "NO", I thought "not another one of these" and closed the tab. Perhaps seemingly showing a result before I've answered questions is an anti-pattern.

ThePadawan 9y ago

Note for future comment readers as confused as me: The post now points to the PDF of a 7-page paper which goes into some detail. Apparently, the original link led to a snarky "No", which isn't at all as flippant as what the paper states.

Udik 9y ago
Can somebody post the original link in a comment?
- esnard 9y ago
  The link was http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ http://doyouneedablockchain.com/ The PDF is linked in the footer.
jaclaz 9y ago
>The post now points to the PDF of a 7-page paper which goes into some detail. Thank you for the note, I missed the "original" link. Surely the "No" is more than a bit snarky, but it is not like the paper in itself contain that much of meaningful "news" or "ground-breaking" considerations, the conclusion (like it seems to me is happening very often on similar papers, i.e. a not-conclusion) is: "We conclude that depending on the application scenario, there are indeed valid use cases for each, permissionless and permissioned blockchains, and centralized databases that need to be determined carefully." It is not a "No", but it is a "it depends" that is not providing much more than the "No".

bmarkovic 9y ago

Actually I followed the questionnaire with rather bland requirements of a very vanilla distributed data-driven application and it said "Perhaps".

marcosdumay 9y ago

Honestly, if you are even wondering, then the answer is a clear "no". It's good to have people repeating this.