6 ms·

> The only thing block chain adds to any problem is when you don’t want a managed good or service to be under central authority or if it can’t be under a centra

> The only thing block chain adds to any problem is when you don’t want a managed good or service to be under central authority or if it can’t be under a central authority (the later situation is probably more interesting). Trust (and thus the ability to use an authority) is not black and white. There are a lot of situations where some trust is allowed up until a certain level. Right now authorities are managed through some form of government or through legal enforcement (contracts and such). - The first one only works in specific scenarios. - The second one is extremely expensive (especially when working across borders). It might technically be not as elegant. But generally speaking servers are a lot cheaper than lawyers. Code is designed to be extendable and reusable, contracts are not. Let's not even talk about the long process of enforcing those contracts manually with very expensive lawyers in a physical court building.

madeofpalk 8y ago
Isn't the 'trust' eroded once a single party gains 51% of compute? Then you're just a really complicated and poorly implemented centralised database.
- solotronics 8y ago
  According to some comments from the core Bitcoin devs if an attacker has 51% of the hash rate they can selectively deny other people's transactions but it takes a much higher percentage of hash to be able to rewrite the blockchain.
- librejustia 8y ago
  51% attack is an issue that people have been concerned about for awhile. But an actor having 51% of the mining doesn't equal to poorly implemented centralized database. And a lot of ppl are keeping a look out for this issue so my guess is that even if one bad actor who happens to have 51%+ tries to hardfork, the rest of the community won't move. There are efforts to deal with this issue. One example being the whole debate around moving from PoW to PoS and other systems.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    > if one bad actor who happens to have 51%+ tries to hardfork, the rest of the community won't move. What does that mean for Walmart and tracking their inventory?
    - scient 8y ago
      This is the problem - these blockchain ideologists only tend to see problems and solutions from the perspective of the actual cryptocurrency blockchains. Real world is sadly a little different...
- hanniabu 8y ago
  Using that logic, centralized systems have zero trust since single parties own 100% of the networks.
  - madeofpalk 8y ago
    Complete opposite - A centralised system requires you to trust the single party operating it, but that's super transparent. Either you trust it or you don't, but it's clear what you're getting yourself into. Meanwhile, blockchain networks advocate a functional network that doesn't require trust - it's kind of predicated on the fact that you _can't_ trust anyone. But if a single party obtains 51% power, you have to trust them anyway. If you're going to require trust, you may as well just do away with the whole complicated setup and be explicit about it.
thisisit 8y ago
> Trust (and thus the ability to use an authority) is not black and white. There are a lot of situations where some trust is allowed up until a certain level. Right now authorities are managed through some form of government or through legal enforcement (contracts and such). How does trust play a role in a company tracking its own inventory? What does blockchain offer in terms of trust even when working across borders?
- jsutton 8y ago
  Because for any sufficiently large company, they won't be the only entity in their inventory's supply chain. Sharing data throughout the supply chain accurately and reliably is an extremely hard problem that has yet to be solved sufficiently. So specifically, blockchain offers a totally accurate, reliable, secure way to track and exchange data across a multitude of distinct businesses with little opportunity for corruption. I'd say that's very valuable, and NOT something that can be done with a central database.
  - thisisit 8y ago
    So, you are saying sharing data through supply chain is difficult. It is difficult because data cannot be tracked in an accurate, reliable, secure way and there is corruption involved. And lastly, blockchain is the only solution to these. How will blockchain help in tracking shipments in an accurate, reliable and secure manner and most importantly, how does it stop corruption? If possible, how about using an example for clarity? Let's say Apple shipping a new MBP from China to a customer in US. How does blockchain work in ensuring all the above features?
    - redog 8y ago
      > How will blockchain help in tracking shipments in an accurate, reliable and secure manner and most importantly, how does it stop corruption? We already had double entry accounting in order to establish immutable book entries but that gives us a problem of a potential multiple sets of books. The publishing of these records to the blockchain via PoW therefore establishes a sort of triple entry system where the Proof of Work idea is intending to prove a single unmodified ledger. I work IT for a retail manufacturer. We have to track ingredients for every product we create and what products they each go into and to which customers they ship out to. I'd say it's reasonable that we trust our own database but do you? Is it reasonable for you to trust my database? What if there's a huge recall because of a tainted ingredient? What if I found out I'd lose my job or the company would fold because of this recall and maybe I was lied to and told the tainted ingredient is harmless(Im no food scientist)? I think we have enough evidence to show that companies will sometimes alter books and lie to avoid responsibility but not me no, I'd NEVER do such a thing, i'm a good boy who would never get fired for doing such a thing but maybe that's what would get me fired....fuck what do I do? Oh you meant data corruption....yea no one has double spent yet have they?
s3m4j 8y ago
>Let's not even talk about the long process of enforcing those contracts manually with very expensive lawyers in a physical court building. You'll still need them at the end of the day though ? Code running in a computer somewhere doesn't rule the physical social very animal side of things. Laws and lawyers are fuzzy constructs because humans are fuzzy creatures to start with, and imo we need that flexibility in laws and in their application, hence why I don't trust the "code is law" catch phrase.
- askmike 8y ago
  I'm not saying it applies to everything. I'm not talking about you getting into a fight with your neighbor and the blockchain will help you settle things. But when two financial companies (for example) enter in some kind of contract the majority of the work involved can be automated on a blockchain as soon as there is one they both trust. source: I've worked for banks trying to do specifically this.
michaelmrose 8y ago
Can you name a situation where the blockchain could obviate the need for lawyers?

madeofpalk 8y ago

Isn't the 'trust' eroded once a single party gains 51% of compute? Then you're just a really complicated and poorly implemented centralised database.

solotronics 8y ago
According to some comments from the core Bitcoin devs if an attacker has 51% of the hash rate they can selectively deny other people's transactions but it takes a much higher percentage of hash to be able to rewrite the blockchain.
librejustia 8y ago
51% attack is an issue that people have been concerned about for awhile. But an actor having 51% of the mining doesn't equal to poorly implemented centralized database. And a lot of ppl are keeping a look out for this issue so my guess is that even if one bad actor who happens to have 51%+ tries to hardfork, the rest of the community won't move. There are efforts to deal with this issue. One example being the whole debate around moving from PoW to PoS and other systems.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  > if one bad actor who happens to have 51%+ tries to hardfork, the rest of the community won't move. What does that mean for Walmart and tracking their inventory?
  - scient 8y ago
    This is the problem - these blockchain ideologists only tend to see problems and solutions from the perspective of the actual cryptocurrency blockchains. Real world is sadly a little different...
hanniabu 8y ago
Using that logic, centralized systems have zero trust since single parties own 100% of the networks.
- madeofpalk 8y ago
  Complete opposite - A centralised system requires you to trust the single party operating it, but that's super transparent. Either you trust it or you don't, but it's clear what you're getting yourself into. Meanwhile, blockchain networks advocate a functional network that doesn't require trust - it's kind of predicated on the fact that you _can't_ trust anyone. But if a single party obtains 51% power, you have to trust them anyway. If you're going to require trust, you may as well just do away with the whole complicated setup and be explicit about it.

thisisit 8y ago

> Trust (and thus the ability to use an authority) is not black and white. There are a lot of situations where some trust is allowed up until a certain level. Right now authorities are managed through some form of government or through legal enforcement (contracts and such). How does trust play a role in a company tracking its own inventory? What does blockchain offer in terms of trust even when working across borders?

jsutton 8y ago
Because for any sufficiently large company, they won't be the only entity in their inventory's supply chain. Sharing data throughout the supply chain accurately and reliably is an extremely hard problem that has yet to be solved sufficiently. So specifically, blockchain offers a totally accurate, reliable, secure way to track and exchange data across a multitude of distinct businesses with little opportunity for corruption. I'd say that's very valuable, and NOT something that can be done with a central database.
- thisisit 8y ago
  So, you are saying sharing data through supply chain is difficult. It is difficult because data cannot be tracked in an accurate, reliable, secure way and there is corruption involved. And lastly, blockchain is the only solution to these. How will blockchain help in tracking shipments in an accurate, reliable and secure manner and most importantly, how does it stop corruption? If possible, how about using an example for clarity? Let's say Apple shipping a new MBP from China to a customer in US. How does blockchain work in ensuring all the above features?
  - redog 8y ago
    > How will blockchain help in tracking shipments in an accurate, reliable and secure manner and most importantly, how does it stop corruption? We already had double entry accounting in order to establish immutable book entries but that gives us a problem of a potential multiple sets of books. The publishing of these records to the blockchain via PoW therefore establishes a sort of triple entry system where the Proof of Work idea is intending to prove a single unmodified ledger. I work IT for a retail manufacturer. We have to track ingredients for every product we create and what products they each go into and to which customers they ship out to. I'd say it's reasonable that we trust our own database but do you? Is it reasonable for you to trust my database? What if there's a huge recall because of a tainted ingredient? What if I found out I'd lose my job or the company would fold because of this recall and maybe I was lied to and told the tainted ingredient is harmless(Im no food scientist)? I think we have enough evidence to show that companies will sometimes alter books and lie to avoid responsibility but not me no, I'd NEVER do such a thing, i'm a good boy who would never get fired for doing such a thing but maybe that's what would get me fired....fuck what do I do? Oh you meant data corruption....yea no one has double spent yet have they?

s3m4j 8y ago

>Let's not even talk about the long process of enforcing those contracts manually with very expensive lawyers in a physical court building. You'll still need them at the end of the day though ? Code running in a computer somewhere doesn't rule the physical social very animal side of things. Laws and lawyers are fuzzy constructs because humans are fuzzy creatures to start with, and imo we need that flexibility in laws and in their application, hence why I don't trust the "code is law" catch phrase.

askmike 8y ago
I'm not saying it applies to everything. I'm not talking about you getting into a fight with your neighbor and the blockchain will help you settle things. But when two financial companies (for example) enter in some kind of contract the majority of the work involved can be automated on a blockchain as soon as there is one they both trust. source: I've worked for banks trying to do specifically this.

michaelmrose 8y ago

Can you name a situation where the blockchain could obviate the need for lawyers?