3 ms·

>voting https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1043.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1043.pdf Also, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/375.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/37

>voting https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1043.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/1043.pdf Also, https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/375.pdf https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/375.pdf Section 4.4.2 >storage https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf https://storj.io/storj.pdf https://storj.io/storj.pdf ^ Detailed analyses that explain why blockchain is an appropriate solution But please do elaborate how they are "known to be worse." By whom and can you cite the analysis that proved so? Certainly not known by Google if they invested in a blockchain-based storage solution? >well understood tradeoffs That's definitely not the case if you take the time to read any blockchain-related thread on HN. But, please, feel free to tell me what are better solutions for the cases I mentioned.

acdha 9y ago
Your second link discusses the problems with voting and correctly votes that they are unsolved, which was the entire point. Every solution proposed so far is a huge regression for privacy or coercion, so it’s dishonest to claim that as anything other than an area which could become not-worse if future fundamental breakthroughs occur. File storage is similar: lots of people want you to buy their pet project but if you want reliable, secure, and cost effective it’s all “maybe sometime in the future when we have something different”. Talk about it as an advantage when it’s competitive for most people.
- throwawaylolx 9y ago
  >they are unsolved, which was the entire point. I thought the point was that "they are known to be worse." >Every solution proposed so far is a huge regression for privacy or coercion Can you please elaborate how is the solution proposed in the paper linked in the first URL a regression over non-blockchain solutions? >it’s dishonest to claim that I replied to the question of "what problem is this technology solving," and the paper you mentioned claims that "it seems reasonable that blockchain technology can help to achieve some of the desired properties." What exactly am I being dishonest with? I cited a paper where a protocol is proposed to help solving the eVoting problem. It directly answers the question I was aiming to answer--I never said my list was about already working, deployed, tested solutions. >File storage is similar: lots of people want you to buy their pet project but if you want reliable, secure, and cost effective it’s all “maybe sometime in the future when we have something different”. Talk about it as an advantage when it’s competitive for most people. Right... so your counter-argument is that "it's not yet ready" despite claiming that "they are known to be worse." No one said they're ready. They're using experimental technology and they're small teams. They already have beta implementations out if you want to test them. Yes, they're not polished and ready for consumers, is this your entire point?
  - acdha 9y ago
    > I thought the point was that "they are known to be worse." Yes, for example, here's the full quote about voting including the sentence immediately after the one you quoted: > Due to the requirements, it seems reasonable that blockchain technology can help to achieve some of the desired properties. However, to the best of our knowledge, so far no solution has been proposed that has been shown to be secure, verifiable, and private and there are still many open challenges. There's simply no proposed system which is not worse than the status quo, and that's ignoring the additional challenge that even in the event of a major academic advance you'd have the additional concerns of having to be cost-competitive and establishing public trustworthiness before you could call it better. That kind of work is measured in decades. The situation is less severe for file storage since you don't have as many attacks but, again, there just isn't something which is comparable on cost, performance, or reliability. I'm comfortable saying that's “known to be worse”.

acdha 9y ago

Your second link discusses the problems with voting and correctly votes that they are unsolved, which was the entire point. Every solution proposed so far is a huge regression for privacy or coercion, so it’s dishonest to claim that as anything other than an area which could become not-worse if future fundamental breakthroughs occur. File storage is similar: lots of people want you to buy their pet project but if you want reliable, secure, and cost effective it’s all “maybe sometime in the future when we have something different”. Talk about it as an advantage when it’s competitive for most people.

throwawaylolx 9y ago
>they are unsolved, which was the entire point. I thought the point was that "they are known to be worse." >Every solution proposed so far is a huge regression for privacy or coercion Can you please elaborate how is the solution proposed in the paper linked in the first URL a regression over non-blockchain solutions? >it’s dishonest to claim that I replied to the question of "what problem is this technology solving," and the paper you mentioned claims that "it seems reasonable that blockchain technology can help to achieve some of the desired properties." What exactly am I being dishonest with? I cited a paper where a protocol is proposed to help solving the eVoting problem. It directly answers the question I was aiming to answer--I never said my list was about already working, deployed, tested solutions. >File storage is similar: lots of people want you to buy their pet project but if you want reliable, secure, and cost effective it’s all “maybe sometime in the future when we have something different”. Talk about it as an advantage when it’s competitive for most people. Right... so your counter-argument is that "it's not yet ready" despite claiming that "they are known to be worse." No one said they're ready. They're using experimental technology and they're small teams. They already have beta implementations out if you want to test them. Yes, they're not polished and ready for consumers, is this your entire point?
- acdha 9y ago
  > I thought the point was that "they are known to be worse." Yes, for example, here's the full quote about voting including the sentence immediately after the one you quoted: > Due to the requirements, it seems reasonable that blockchain technology can help to achieve some of the desired properties. However, to the best of our knowledge, so far no solution has been proposed that has been shown to be secure, verifiable, and private and there are still many open challenges. There's simply no proposed system which is not worse than the status quo, and that's ignoring the additional challenge that even in the event of a major academic advance you'd have the additional concerns of having to be cost-competitive and establishing public trustworthiness before you could call it better. That kind of work is measured in decades. The situation is less severe for file storage since you don't have as many attacks but, again, there just isn't something which is comparable on cost, performance, or reliability. I'm comfortable saying that's “known to be worse”.