3 ms·

But it is quite hard to think of a useful application for blockchain that isn't done better and cheaper by existing methods.

kerkeslager 9y ago
No, not really. Anything where decentralized trust is useful: money, anonymous messaging, voting, etc. Cheaper/better isn't really relevant, because these things can't be done by a centralized method without trusting a central authority, period.
- sangnoir 9y ago
  > Anything where decentralized trust is useful: money, anonymous messaging, voting, etc. I completely disagree with your examples: trust in money is centralized because I trust a central government will ensure it is legal tender, and that a central bank will act in the best interest of stability. If there's no centralized trusted party in messaging - how can I trust the messages? Trust has to be rooted somewhere - when a newspaper quotes anonymous sources, I'm implicitly trusting the newspaper and its source-vetting process. When it comes to voting - confidence in the vote counter is essential. I suspect our difference is more fundamental - I assume that just like any other system - decentralized systems can be subverted, and there will be parties who will subvert it. The only difference is that for centralized system, I usually will trust the central authority to fix/mitigate problems. When "decentralized" systems are subverted, you will discover that they were centralized after all when it emerges that someone (unilaterally or by way of some vote) can make "fixes" that affect the entire system (forking the blockchain, dropping some "rogue" transactions, changing the algorithm, etc).
  - ahnick 9y ago
    The difference between centralized trust and decentralized trust is you can actually audit and reason about the system. In centralized trust you are typically hoping that human actors obey rules both written and unwritten. In decentralized trust the system is solely responsible and the code of the system is the exact rules it will follow. The tricky part of decentralized systems of course is have their designs been done flawlessly, so there are no vulnerabilities. (A very hard thing to do) In practice, perhaps decentralized systems do not have to be perfect, but just better than the centralized alternatives.
  - kerkeslager 9y ago
    If you trust a central authority such as the government, then blockchain doesn't solve a problem you have. That doesn't change the fact that many people don't trust the central authorities, often because their situation differs from yours such that it is not rational for them to trust the central authorities. In some cases blockchain solves their problems. Blockchain solves real problems. They just aren't problems you (or most people on HN) have.

kerkeslager 9y ago

No, not really. Anything where decentralized trust is useful: money, anonymous messaging, voting, etc. Cheaper/better isn't really relevant, because these things can't be done by a centralized method without trusting a central authority, period.

sangnoir 9y ago
> Anything where decentralized trust is useful: money, anonymous messaging, voting, etc. I completely disagree with your examples: trust in money is centralized because I trust a central government will ensure it is legal tender, and that a central bank will act in the best interest of stability. If there's no centralized trusted party in messaging - how can I trust the messages? Trust has to be rooted somewhere - when a newspaper quotes anonymous sources, I'm implicitly trusting the newspaper and its source-vetting process. When it comes to voting - confidence in the vote counter is essential. I suspect our difference is more fundamental - I assume that just like any other system - decentralized systems can be subverted, and there will be parties who will subvert it. The only difference is that for centralized system, I usually will trust the central authority to fix/mitigate problems. When "decentralized" systems are subverted, you will discover that they were centralized after all when it emerges that someone (unilaterally or by way of some vote) can make "fixes" that affect the entire system (forking the blockchain, dropping some "rogue" transactions, changing the algorithm, etc).
- ahnick 9y ago
  The difference between centralized trust and decentralized trust is you can actually audit and reason about the system. In centralized trust you are typically hoping that human actors obey rules both written and unwritten. In decentralized trust the system is solely responsible and the code of the system is the exact rules it will follow. The tricky part of decentralized systems of course is have their designs been done flawlessly, so there are no vulnerabilities. (A very hard thing to do) In practice, perhaps decentralized systems do not have to be perfect, but just better than the centralized alternatives.
- kerkeslager 9y ago
  If you trust a central authority such as the government, then blockchain doesn't solve a problem you have. That doesn't change the fact that many people don't trust the central authorities, often because their situation differs from yours such that it is not rational for them to trust the central authorities. In some cases blockchain solves their problems. Blockchain solves real problems. They just aren't problems you (or most people on HN) have.