5 ms·

I studied the source of the bitcoin blockchain a couple of years ago when the whole "blockchain will change the world" movement began. Although I really liked t

by LeonM 9y ago

I studied the source of the bitcoin blockchain a couple of years ago when the whole "blockchain will change the world" movement began. Although I really liked the elegance of the blockchain, I never understood what the blockchain would solve in a real-world application. How I see it: blockchaining is an arms race in computing power. In order to sufficiently 'secure' your chain you need to spend more value (electricity) than an attacker is willing (or capable) of spending. This makes blockchains very expensive, slow and an environmental disaster. Unless a blockchain has tremendous value (like cryptocurrencies currenly have) there is no way to sustain them.

icebraining 9y ago
In theory, the value of the blockchain is proportional to the value of attacking it; if a particular chain is not very valuable, it doesn't need to have much power securing it.
jacquesm 9y ago
> blockchaining is an arms race in computing power. Distributed blockchains.
- LeonM 9y ago
  That is correct, but a non-distributed blockchain (i.e. something you use locally) sounds like a something that can also be solved by using a database or even your filesystem. I'm not saying blockchains are bad technology, non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems, but it's not the "world changing" revolution many claim it to be.
  - chillee 9y ago
    What? What would be the point of a non-distributed blockchain? Fundamentally, blockchains are a solution to the distributed consensus problem, where you're not guaranteed anything on the length of time it takes to communicate between two nodes. Also known as asynchronous consensus. If you're local (or within a small network with bounded, you don't really need asynchronous consensus. Dolev-Strong or any number of other synchronous/semi-synchronous protocols would work fine.
    - spurcell93 9y ago
      I think LeonM's point WAS that it's unnecessary to qualify "blockchain" with distributed, because as you say, it would be relaively pointless otherwise.
      - chillee 9y ago
        I was more remarking upon > non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems
oreo81 9y ago
>Unless a blockchain has tremendous value (like cryptocurrencies currenly have) there is no way to sustain them. This is not true, value is arbitrary.
FreeCrypto 9y ago
Expensive and slow seems to be the point. An attacker would need to spend an inordinate amount to change just the most recent transactions - this provides high confidence that the chain is immutable and secure. Maybe digital scarcity with trustless, secure transactions is not valuable to you (or the author), but many people do see promise there. Additionally, the "environmental disaster" claims have always seemed shallow to me. Yes, it is a serious issue if everyone is mining with coal powered electricity, but how did it get so cheap? Isn't it on the government to not subsidize coal? The largest mining companies are finding super cheap energy in renewables (1). In the long run, I feel like mining is what can pay for further investment in renewables. For instance, see the article below about Germany paying customers to use electricity (2). Seems like government level mining might be a good investment. 1. https://globalnews.ca/news/3974083/bitcoin-mining-quebec-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3974083/bitcoin-mining-quebec-can... 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-paying-electricity-customers-renewable-energy-power-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-payi...

by LeonM 9y ago

icebraining 9y ago

In theory, the value of the blockchain is proportional to the value of attacking it; if a particular chain is not very valuable, it doesn't need to have much power securing it.

jacquesm 9y ago

> blockchaining is an arms race in computing power. Distributed blockchains.

LeonM 9y ago
That is correct, but a non-distributed blockchain (i.e. something you use locally) sounds like a something that can also be solved by using a database or even your filesystem. I'm not saying blockchains are bad technology, non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems, but it's not the "world changing" revolution many claim it to be.
- chillee 9y ago
  What? What would be the point of a non-distributed blockchain? Fundamentally, blockchains are a solution to the distributed consensus problem, where you're not guaranteed anything on the length of time it takes to communicate between two nodes. Also known as asynchronous consensus. If you're local (or within a small network with bounded, you don't really need asynchronous consensus. Dolev-Strong or any number of other synchronous/semi-synchronous protocols would work fine.
  - spurcell93 9y ago
    I think LeonM's point WAS that it's unnecessary to qualify "blockchain" with distributed, because as you say, it would be relaively pointless otherwise.
    - chillee 9y ago
      I was more remarking upon > non-distributed blockchains can be a very good solution to certain problems

oreo81 9y ago

>Unless a blockchain has tremendous value (like cryptocurrencies currenly have) there is no way to sustain them. This is not true, value is arbitrary.

FreeCrypto 9y ago

Expensive and slow seems to be the point. An attacker would need to spend an inordinate amount to change just the most recent transactions - this provides high confidence that the chain is immutable and secure. Maybe digital scarcity with trustless, secure transactions is not valuable to you (or the author), but many people do see promise there. Additionally, the "environmental disaster" claims have always seemed shallow to me. Yes, it is a serious issue if everyone is mining with coal powered electricity, but how did it get so cheap? Isn't it on the government to not subsidize coal? The largest mining companies are finding super cheap energy in renewables (1). In the long run, I feel like mining is what can pay for further investment in renewables. For instance, see the article below about Germany paying customers to use electricity (2). Seems like government level mining might be a good investment. 1. https://globalnews.ca/news/3974083/bitcoin-mining-quebec-canada/ https://globalnews.ca/news/3974083/bitcoin-mining-quebec-can... 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-paying-electricity-customers-renewable-energy-power-surplus-wind-solar-generation-a8022576.html https://www.independent.co.uk/environment/germany-grids-payi...