3 ms·

> How does that translate to blockchain tech not being useful? By proving that without a central authority (centralization) verifying everything going into the

> How does that translate to blockchain tech not being useful? By proving that without a central authority (centralization) verifying everything going into the blockchain, it is actually useless? I have seen tons of threads where people like to mention shipping as a good use-case for blockchain. Supposedly it ensures manifest etc can't be doctored. And as this example shows if the data is tainted at source, blockchain is just a database, a rather complex one at that. In that case, it is better to use a traditional and controlled database.

drexlspivey 8y ago
How about if you need some central authority to verify everything going into the blockchain don't use a blockchain and use a database instead?
davesque 8y ago
> By proving that without a central authority (centralization) verifying everything going into the blockchain, it is actually useless? So then I guess there's no use for cryptographic signing, hash chains, and graph-theoretic consensus protocols? Because that's what you're saying. Your characterization of blockchains as "useless" only makes it seem like you have no idea what it actually is. It's not that complicated. It's just a handful of known and widely-accepted-as-not-being-useless-on-their-own algorithms which have been combined in a creative way. > In that case, it is better to use a traditional and controlled database. So then you get...what? You get the same thing but without cryptographic integrity checks. If incorrect data is committed, don't use that data. Or, better yet, commit a revocation of that data. At least you don't have to worry about Larry's shipping company cooking the books after the fact to their own advantage.
- mannykannot 8y ago
  > So then I guess there's no use for cryptographic signing, hash chains, and graph-theoretic consensus protocols? Because that's what you're saying. What's being said is that it's not useful for shipping (and physical asset provenance) applications. The validity of the components is a necessary but not sufficient step in validating the application, and the latter cannot be derived from the former. The usefulness of blockchains for currency does not, in itself, imply their usefulness in shipping. >At least you don't have to worry about Larry's shipping company cooking the books after the fact to their own advantage. This is not as much of an advantage as it seems, if Larry can defraud you by going around the blockchain. Your risk is then determined by Larry's inclination to fraud, which is the same in either case. Fixing one hole in a fence doesn't help if the cattle can get out through another that you cannot fix. What this argument needs is the outline of an actual solution to the problems.

drexlspivey 8y ago

How about if you need some central authority to verify everything going into the blockchain don't use a blockchain and use a database instead?

davesque 8y ago

> By proving that without a central authority (centralization) verifying everything going into the blockchain, it is actually useless? So then I guess there's no use for cryptographic signing, hash chains, and graph-theoretic consensus protocols? Because that's what you're saying. Your characterization of blockchains as "useless" only makes it seem like you have no idea what it actually is. It's not that complicated. It's just a handful of known and widely-accepted-as-not-being-useless-on-their-own algorithms which have been combined in a creative way. > In that case, it is better to use a traditional and controlled database. So then you get...what? You get the same thing but without cryptographic integrity checks. If incorrect data is committed, don't use that data. Or, better yet, commit a revocation of that data. At least you don't have to worry about Larry's shipping company cooking the books after the fact to their own advantage.

mannykannot 8y ago
> So then I guess there's no use for cryptographic signing, hash chains, and graph-theoretic consensus protocols? Because that's what you're saying. What's being said is that it's not useful for shipping (and physical asset provenance) applications. The validity of the components is a necessary but not sufficient step in validating the application, and the latter cannot be derived from the former. The usefulness of blockchains for currency does not, in itself, imply their usefulness in shipping. >At least you don't have to worry about Larry's shipping company cooking the books after the fact to their own advantage. This is not as much of an advantage as it seems, if Larry can defraud you by going around the blockchain. Your risk is then determined by Larry's inclination to fraud, which is the same in either case. Fixing one hole in a fence doesn't help if the cattle can get out through another that you cannot fix. What this argument needs is the outline of an actual solution to the problems.