4 ms·

Common usage of the term blockchain implies a trustless, distributed consensus model. Even the Wikipedia article on blockchain references this in it's opening b

Common usage of the term blockchain implies a trustless, distributed consensus model. Even the Wikipedia article on blockchain references this in it's opening blurb, and asserts that Satoshi invented the blockchain [1]. Google trends also shows that the term practically didn't exist prior to widespread recognition of Bitcoin (even if you adjust the window to hide the recent spike, it was virtually unused) [2]. It's not the best nomenclature in the world, but that's just what it has come to mean. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain [2] https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=blockchain https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=all&q=blockcha...

Ajedi32 9y ago
> trustless, distributed consensus model Still sounds like git to me. The main difference is that Bitcoin's consensus model is fully automated, whereas git's relies on humans making decisions on which commits to include in their copy of the repo. (Though I suppose "trust" can indeed be one factor humans use when making such a decision.)
- spookthesunset 9y ago
  > The main difference is that Bitcoin's consensus model is fully automated Except when it isn't. For example, the DAO "hack" resulted in humans overriding the automation to roll back history to bail out certain "investors". Or all the bitcoin forks. Or the fact that bitcoin mining is largely done by about three mining groups in China. So Bitcoin is "trustless", but really believing in bitcoin involves every bit as much trust (or dare I say, faith) as any other thing in your life does. > Though I suppose "trust" can indeed be one factor humans use when making such a decision. Watching the bitcoin/blockchain hype-train has shown to me that humans require trust to thrive. To thrive you need to trust that you have a stable government, that you eat breakfast cereal doesn't contain lead, that you can walk past 99.99999% of people without getting stabbed. Take away trust and suddenly the world get massively more expensive. Transaction costs go through the roof. You have to personally inspect every aspect of your breakfast cereal maker and all their vendors (eg: the folks that made the fertilizer used to grow the grain (don't want toxic chemicals), the hygiene of the employees operating the production line (don't want piss in your cereal),etc ). If you don't rigorously verify everything, you'll get fucked and die. In bitcoin this happens all the time - you can't trust anything in bitcoin--you can't trust your wallet maker, the printer used to print a paper wallet, the exchange you use, the software you use, the OS you run on, you can't trust any of it. Any break in the system will result in total loss of your bitcoin (and then you'll be called a moron by other bagholders because you didn't follow all 231 "simple" steps required to secure bitcoin)... In short, society can't exist without trust. Bitcoin and the blockchain are attempts to remove the need to trust each other. The result is a cumbersome, non-scalable, deliberately inefficient design that still requires human trust to function. Which is why I personally think they are worthless technology in search of a problem. Every problem they try to solve still requires human trust, which renders their use pointless... Might as well just use git. It is far more efficient, can handle vastly more data, and doesn't require more electricity than many countries use in order to operate.
  - wan23 9y ago
    This is sort of a strawman. No one is saying that trust should be removed from society in general. Bitcoin proponents think it's desirable to have a way to store and transfer money without having to trust a single party. Anyone who has had Paypal freeze their funds or had a customer request a chargeback after receiving service could tell you why that might be desirable.

Ajedi32 9y ago

> trustless, distributed consensus model Still sounds like git to me. The main difference is that Bitcoin's consensus model is fully automated, whereas git's relies on humans making decisions on which commits to include in their copy of the repo. (Though I suppose "trust" can indeed be one factor humans use when making such a decision.)

spookthesunset 9y ago
> The main difference is that Bitcoin's consensus model is fully automated Except when it isn't. For example, the DAO "hack" resulted in humans overriding the automation to roll back history to bail out certain "investors". Or all the bitcoin forks. Or the fact that bitcoin mining is largely done by about three mining groups in China. So Bitcoin is "trustless", but really believing in bitcoin involves every bit as much trust (or dare I say, faith) as any other thing in your life does. > Though I suppose "trust" can indeed be one factor humans use when making such a decision. Watching the bitcoin/blockchain hype-train has shown to me that humans require trust to thrive. To thrive you need to trust that you have a stable government, that you eat breakfast cereal doesn't contain lead, that you can walk past 99.99999% of people without getting stabbed. Take away trust and suddenly the world get massively more expensive. Transaction costs go through the roof. You have to personally inspect every aspect of your breakfast cereal maker and all their vendors (eg: the folks that made the fertilizer used to grow the grain (don't want toxic chemicals), the hygiene of the employees operating the production line (don't want piss in your cereal),etc ). If you don't rigorously verify everything, you'll get fucked and die. In bitcoin this happens all the time - you can't trust anything in bitcoin--you can't trust your wallet maker, the printer used to print a paper wallet, the exchange you use, the software you use, the OS you run on, you can't trust any of it. Any break in the system will result in total loss of your bitcoin (and then you'll be called a moron by other bagholders because you didn't follow all 231 "simple" steps required to secure bitcoin)... In short, society can't exist without trust. Bitcoin and the blockchain are attempts to remove the need to trust each other. The result is a cumbersome, non-scalable, deliberately inefficient design that still requires human trust to function. Which is why I personally think they are worthless technology in search of a problem. Every problem they try to solve still requires human trust, which renders their use pointless... Might as well just use git. It is far more efficient, can handle vastly more data, and doesn't require more electricity than many countries use in order to operate.
- wan23 9y ago
  This is sort of a strawman. No one is saying that trust should be removed from society in general. Bitcoin proponents think it's desirable to have a way to store and transfer money without having to trust a single party. Anyone who has had Paypal freeze their funds or had a customer request a chargeback after receiving service could tell you why that might be desirable.