3 ms·

People don't like to hear this, but blockchain tech isn't ready for a general app platform. Bitcoin could easily be extended to have an EVM if it was a good ide

by Taek 9y ago

People don't like to hear this, but blockchain tech isn't ready for a general app platform. Bitcoin could easily be extended to have an EVM if it was a good idea, but there are lots of unsolved problems, gotchas, and overheads that make it a poor choice. I don't think that's the perpetual state of things, but I do think that every 'dapp' platform out there today is bad foundation, and largely that's because it's too early to be making general platforms. The approach that a couple of currencies have taken (including the one I lead) is to make a separate blockchain entirely dedicated to their app. And I think that's a far better choice than anything out there, though it comes with the glaring downside of needing to build and run your own blockchain, which is a very difficult thing to do. Most of the apps we are seeing today don't make any sense anyway. Very much smacks of the dotcom bubble, where people who suspected that the Internet would change the world were absolutely correct, but then the companies and ideas they put their money behind were missing the mark by miles. We've got the same issue today. Most successful ICOs are going to fail very hard, due to known impossibilities, known poor uses of the technology, etc. It's just a general fever that has a lot of new entrants in the space innovating in the wrong direction. It will get better. Dapp platforms will appear that make sense, have good foundations, and are easy to setup and use. But it's not around the corner, it's probably 3-5 years away.

thisisit 9y ago
> People don't like to hear this, but blockchain tech isn't ready for a general app platform. This cannot be stressed enough. But, I disagree that building your own blockchain is the answer in comparison to using EVM. The amount of blockchains and services people might end up needing will be huge. So, it seems the correct usage for blockchain is still far out.
- phoenix9 9y ago
  What about steemit.com? The more scalable eos.io platform isn't finished but they are very close. Do you consider dpos not to be blockchain tech?
tessierashpool 9y ago
I agree with this overall, but have serious reservations here: Bitcoin could easily be extended to have an EVM are you talking about Script, or some other approach I don’t know about? I think it’s pretty optimistic to put the word “easily” anywhere near a proposed use of Script.
- earlz 9y ago
  I don't know about "easily", but that's pretty much exactly what Qtum did. It's a UTXO blockchain with EVM and other smart contracts on top. It required about 6 solid months to figure out how to make it work and the output of that is something called "The Account Abstraction Layer" to basically decouple smart contracts from the underlying blockchain protocol
kerkeslager 9y ago
> Most of the apps we are seeing today don't make any sense anyway. Very much smacks of the dotcom bubble, where people who suspected that the Internet would change the world were absolutely correct, but then the companies and ideas they put their money behind were missing the mark by miles. This is the crux of the problem. The cryptocurrencies with the highest valuations right now are ones with serious technical and social flaws--people are investing in cryptocurrencies based on hype rather than merit. Ethereum is the most egregious example: the idea that a JavaScript-like language is what you'd want to write your security-intensive code in is mind-boggling-ly stupid, and after the community showed themselves to be willing to perform a 51% attack on their own blockchain to fix a problem with the DAO, it's not even decentralized any more. So technically you have all the downsides of writing secure software in JavaScript, and socially you have all the problems of centralization AND all the problems of decentralization. The security flaw this thread is about would be a critical vulnerability to any competent security developer, but it's really minor compared to the more fundamental flaws. But even in competently-developed cryptocurrencies, the problems are still there because people don't understand or value decentralization, which is literally the entire reason Blockchain is worthwhile. The number of people who buy cryptocurrencies and then leave their coins sitting on an exchange is incredible. You're literally donating money to the world's biggest bug bounties when you do that.
- dorgo 9y ago
  In my opinion, decentralization is not the point of crypto-tech. Maybe it's some minor feature, but not the selling proposition. The major feature is the formalisation of the concept of consensus. Forks are a manifestation of this feature. "a 51% attack on their own blockchain" is a major feature of crypto-tech. In the last century we would call this a revolution. In this century issues like this can be resolved enterily in software. It's an opt-in economy and in some years an opt-in society. The only reason you think the cash in your portemonai is worth something is that everybody else things the same. As soon as everybody stops believing it, the paper in your wallet can still be used to make fire. Same goes for authorities. Judges, policemen, presidents are what they are because everybody believes it. We have already an informal consensus of who is a policeman and who is not. Most of the time it resolves to whether somebody wears the uniform. Crypto tech promises to make this verifiably. No need for uniforms.

by Taek 9y ago

thisisit 9y ago

> People don't like to hear this, but blockchain tech isn't ready for a general app platform. This cannot be stressed enough. But, I disagree that building your own blockchain is the answer in comparison to using EVM. The amount of blockchains and services people might end up needing will be huge. So, it seems the correct usage for blockchain is still far out.

phoenix9 9y ago
What about steemit.com? The more scalable eos.io platform isn't finished but they are very close. Do you consider dpos not to be blockchain tech?

tessierashpool 9y ago

I agree with this overall, but have serious reservations here: Bitcoin could easily be extended to have an EVM are you talking about Script, or some other approach I don’t know about? I think it’s pretty optimistic to put the word “easily” anywhere near a proposed use of Script.

earlz 9y ago
I don't know about "easily", but that's pretty much exactly what Qtum did. It's a UTXO blockchain with EVM and other smart contracts on top. It required about 6 solid months to figure out how to make it work and the output of that is something called "The Account Abstraction Layer" to basically decouple smart contracts from the underlying blockchain protocol

kerkeslager 9y ago

> Most of the apps we are seeing today don't make any sense anyway. Very much smacks of the dotcom bubble, where people who suspected that the Internet would change the world were absolutely correct, but then the companies and ideas they put their money behind were missing the mark by miles. This is the crux of the problem. The cryptocurrencies with the highest valuations right now are ones with serious technical and social flaws--people are investing in cryptocurrencies based on hype rather than merit. Ethereum is the most egregious example: the idea that a JavaScript-like language is what you'd want to write your security-intensive code in is mind-boggling-ly stupid, and after the community showed themselves to be willing to perform a 51% attack on their own blockchain to fix a problem with the DAO, it's not even decentralized any more. So technically you have all the downsides of writing secure software in JavaScript, and socially you have all the problems of centralization AND all the problems of decentralization. The security flaw this thread is about would be a critical vulnerability to any competent security developer, but it's really minor compared to the more fundamental flaws. But even in competently-developed cryptocurrencies, the problems are still there because people don't understand or value decentralization, which is literally the entire reason Blockchain is worthwhile. The number of people who buy cryptocurrencies and then leave their coins sitting on an exchange is incredible. You're literally donating money to the world's biggest bug bounties when you do that.

dorgo 9y ago
In my opinion, decentralization is not the point of crypto-tech. Maybe it's some minor feature, but not the selling proposition. The major feature is the formalisation of the concept of consensus. Forks are a manifestation of this feature. "a 51% attack on their own blockchain" is a major feature of crypto-tech. In the last century we would call this a revolution. In this century issues like this can be resolved enterily in software. It's an opt-in economy and in some years an opt-in society. The only reason you think the cash in your portemonai is worth something is that everybody else things the same. As soon as everybody stops believing it, the paper in your wallet can still be used to make fire. Same goes for authorities. Judges, policemen, presidents are what they are because everybody believes it. We have already an informal consensus of who is a policeman and who is not. Most of the time it resolves to whether somebody wears the uniform. Crypto tech promises to make this verifiably. No need for uniforms.