6 ms·
If there is a definitive source of trust (ie. the government) then a blockchain is a very inefficient mechanism for distribution.
by seanalltogether 9y ago
If there is a definitive source of trust (ie. the government) then a blockchain is a very inefficient mechanism for distribution.
- __s 9y agoDon't trust the government
- arisAlexis 9y agoyes very little corruption in governments worldwide and records are never counterfeited. I agree
- namdnay 9y agoBut if the government is corrupt they'll just say that the original transaction was invalid for X Y Z reasons and carry on... the truth being obvious has never been a problem for corrupt regimes
- visarga 9y agoThe government will outmine everyone and change the records.
- seanalltogether 9y agoAre you suggesting governments (corrupt or not) would consider handing over the signing authority for legal processes to external anonymous parties?
- smileysteve 9y agoGit provides centralized version tracking that can be cloned easily -- no miners required. And authenticity, while not truly unique is likely unique enough.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoAnd how would a blockchain stop a government from putting a counterfeit record in to start?
- spookthesunset 9y ago> And how would a blockchain stop a government from putting a counterfeit record in to start? Or any entity? Sure you can trust that once it is in the blockchain it won't get tampered with but you still have to trust the source of that record. ... which is where all these stupid "do your inventory management on the blockchain" things fall apart with even an ounce of thought. Who gives a crap if the blockchain trustlessly says the wine was made with grapes from peru if a corruptible human had to enter it... At some point, all data comes from humans and you have to trust those humans to do the right thing. And when those humans breech that trust, you need meatspace based institutions to sort out the mess...