7 ms·

I’ve worked for a company obsessed with blockchains. What really happens in my experience is that some clueless business person tells the boffins to work on it,

I’ve worked for a company obsessed with blockchains. What really happens in my experience is that some clueless business person tells the boffins to work on it, because they’re super scared of the hype that this new tech might destroy them. But they don’t understand it all. Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git.

rickycook 8y ago
id say because it’s a tool purpose built to provide a distributed ledger between untrusted (or in this case semi trusted maybe) parties... git is not a tool thats built for that. if you reverse the argument, explain why git is a better solution for a write only, transactionally consistent, distributed, trustless ledger. i’m sure you could make something akin to a blockchain with git, but why would you when we have a perfectly viable solution that’s prebuilt for the purpose. they both might be able to perform similar functions with enough customisation, but a blockchain is fit for purpose out of the box. note: i’m thinking here a blockchain with POA where tokens are distributed between known parties, so no overhead of POW. POW has very obvious down sides
- Moodles 8y ago
  Git with public/private keys is literally that. I don't understand why there's hype around blockchains. Besides, how can people say a private blockchain is "trustless"? You just said "POA" ( = proof of authority). The conversations I often got into at my job were like this. It was so incredibly difficult to pin down exactly why they even wanted a blockchain. Or what a blockchain even was in their heads.
  - berkes 8y ago
    It's only a little more than that: Git (or a DAG) + priv/pub keys + Proof of Work = blockchain If you remove "PoW" it is just "signing in git". Which is an interesing and complex thing. And it being private removes all the need for PoW or removes the function that PoW fulfills. So a "private blockchain with PoW" is really stupid and (even more so) a waste of energy. Whereas a "private blockchain without PoW" is "just git".
    - Moodles 8y ago
      Haha yeah, it's comical how crazy the hype is. 1. Blockchain was this clever solution related to money. Anonymous person invented it. Some news about crime around it. Lots of money around it. So blockchain is this money thing and technology thing? Sounds kinda sexy. 2. Business people heard about it, thought it might be The Next Big Thing. Ask boffins to investigate. 3. Other business people heard their rivals think blockchains are The Next Big Thing so they need to get on it too. 4. hmmmm, turns out a business is mostly all about being centralized which is at odds with a boockchain. hmmm it's actually kinda uselsss? Maybe we can get rid of all the bits we don't like about it? oops we just reinvented the wheel. A "private blockchain with proof of authority" is like cutting the hump of a camel and calling it a horse. Just use Git.
      - dboreham 8y ago
        There is much hype. However, as someone who was at least as skeptical (and cynical) as you a few months ago, but (somewhat accidentally) has ended up working this this space, and for cognitive dissonance-reduction reasons, has had to figure out what's real and what's hype (or just plain lies), I have to say that I don't think it is all as bogus as you perceive. >A "private blockchain with proof of authority" is like cutting the hump of a camel and calling it a horse. Just use Git. This sounds clever, but it isn't right: Git has no equivalent to consensus for transaction correctness, for example. It has no equivalent to smart contracts. It has no peer discovery mechanism. It has no automatic transaction propagation mechanism. And on... Executive summary : "there may be a pony in there somewhere"
        Moodles 8y ago
        We sound quite similar. I also accidentally ended up working in this space a few months ago and started off incredibly cynical (my first meeting telling everyone there I don't think there are any useful applications relevant to the business whatsoever). Looks like I went one way (getting out and doing something else) and you stuck around :-) I hope you are right and the technology is actually useful for humanity. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. I conjecture that blockchains have no applications beyond cryptocurrency. I hope someone can give me a very simple counterexample. I've seen blockchains for the music industry, for porn, for university, for bananas in Laos, for weed, for voting, for "supply chain" something or other. I've never seen an application explained simply that makes sense. I am highly skeptical of the field.
askmike 8y ago
> Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git. Because with git you either go: - The linux way with one upstream and everyone branching of the "main" repo: In a lot of ways everyone is relying on the centralized main repo of linux, and in every other way they disagree on the final state (eg. the final code). - The "github" way where there is one version hosted on a centralized service that everyone needs to trust. Beyond the obvious security problems when trying to use git for actually important data ( for example: https://shattered.io/ https://shattered.io/ ), git doesn't help you in any way to come to a consensus about what happened and in what order. Instead it gives tools to rewrite history as how you see fit (like rebase).
- Moodles 8y ago
  Basically in both cases the problem is a centralized repo, right? That's not really a problem with signed commits though, is it? E.g. Google's certificate transparency or Keybase. At this point we are arguing over the definition of Git vs private blockchain though. I just don't get the hype. Merkle trees have been around since the 70s.
  - askmike 8y ago
    Well in the first case the problem is the lack of centralized repo: there are a million and one forks of linux, and they are all linux however they have all different code (Linus maintains the one that most people call linux, but there all Linux nonetheless). Imagine if it wasn't code, but financial data that would not really work.. The problem with git is that it doesn't allow you to form any consensus with a group of people (that you can't always trust). git's answer to 2 people committing to the same file is to throw a merge conflict in your face: Git is saying: I can't figure out what the truth anymore, so please tell me. That only works if you can trust everyone. > Merkle trees have been around since the 70s. Blockchains didn't reinvent many things, 95% of a blockchain is basic cryptography. Merkle trees are awesome and they are used as well (for example when grouping transactions into blocks within Bitcoin). The reason why you need more than a merkle tree is because a merkle tree doesn't help you if: - You can't trust one single party to maintain (or host) the whole thing: yes you can use digital signatures to make sure they don't forge what you said. But what if they deny you access and ignore your messages? What if they change the order people said things? A merkle tree can't protect you from this. - You need to agree with other people in what order certain things happened, this is a hard problem in networks / distributed systems. Especially if you have actors trying to manipulate this very thing. - You need to align incentives in a way that breaking the complete system is infeasible from a financial point of view. ---- Take Bitcoin as an example, a (kind of) anonymous payment system in the internet, the only things protecting everyone's money are public/private cryptography and the costs involved with rewriting history (51% attack). Bad actors attack it every day, but no matter who's door the police kicks in you only have to trust cryptography (the only other weak link is your personal private key, so if you they hit in your door - but there is no other middlemen). > I just don't get the hype. There is a ton of hype, and whether it's valid or not depends on if the world needs such a system. Blockchain proponents say that once you have a stable decentralized system that can run any code and cannot be corrupted in any way, you will see innovation flourishing similar to the internet: the internet brought complete freedom of information (and industries build on top were not imaginable in the 80s), some people think the blockchain will bring freedom to anything that is (or should be) scarce. Like money and commodities.
JBReefer 8y ago
This is a good exercise that the other answers fail at the twist. Git is a blockchain, and sometimes a private one.
- Moodles 8y ago
  Yes, this is what I expect to happen. 1. Satoshi comes up with this clever blockchain thing with proof of work and hashing and append-only characteristics. It solves a very specific problem. 2. It involves money and new tech so business people get on the bandwagon and tell the boffins to investigate. 3. There's a lot of hype and good publicity for it (e.g. KodakCoin, Long Island Iced Tea Blockchain) 4. The technology as Satoshi defines it is actually pretty useless for their application. So they bend the definition slightly. Blockchain becomes Git or something with a signature or hashing or even a Merkle Tree. 5. Git etc is actually useful sometimes. The blockchain prophecy is complete. The business people are happy. The boffins don't do anything really, but everyone gets paid so nobody really cares.

rickycook 8y ago

id say because it’s a tool purpose built to provide a distributed ledger between untrusted (or in this case semi trusted maybe) parties... git is not a tool thats built for that. if you reverse the argument, explain why git is a better solution for a write only, transactionally consistent, distributed, trustless ledger. i’m sure you could make something akin to a blockchain with git, but why would you when we have a perfectly viable solution that’s prebuilt for the purpose. they both might be able to perform similar functions with enough customisation, but a blockchain is fit for purpose out of the box. note: i’m thinking here a blockchain with POA where tokens are distributed between known parties, so no overhead of POW. POW has very obvious down sides

Moodles 8y ago
Git with public/private keys is literally that. I don't understand why there's hype around blockchains. Besides, how can people say a private blockchain is "trustless"? You just said "POA" ( = proof of authority). The conversations I often got into at my job were like this. It was so incredibly difficult to pin down exactly why they even wanted a blockchain. Or what a blockchain even was in their heads.
- berkes 8y ago
  It's only a little more than that: Git (or a DAG) + priv/pub keys + Proof of Work = blockchain If you remove "PoW" it is just "signing in git". Which is an interesing and complex thing. And it being private removes all the need for PoW or removes the function that PoW fulfills. So a "private blockchain with PoW" is really stupid and (even more so) a waste of energy. Whereas a "private blockchain without PoW" is "just git".
  - Moodles 8y ago
    Haha yeah, it's comical how crazy the hype is. 1. Blockchain was this clever solution related to money. Anonymous person invented it. Some news about crime around it. Lots of money around it. So blockchain is this money thing and technology thing? Sounds kinda sexy. 2. Business people heard about it, thought it might be The Next Big Thing. Ask boffins to investigate. 3. Other business people heard their rivals think blockchains are The Next Big Thing so they need to get on it too. 4. hmmmm, turns out a business is mostly all about being centralized which is at odds with a boockchain. hmmm it's actually kinda uselsss? Maybe we can get rid of all the bits we don't like about it? oops we just reinvented the wheel. A "private blockchain with proof of authority" is like cutting the hump of a camel and calling it a horse. Just use Git.
    - dboreham 8y ago
      There is much hype. However, as someone who was at least as skeptical (and cynical) as you a few months ago, but (somewhat accidentally) has ended up working this this space, and for cognitive dissonance-reduction reasons, has had to figure out what's real and what's hype (or just plain lies), I have to say that I don't think it is all as bogus as you perceive. >A "private blockchain with proof of authority" is like cutting the hump of a camel and calling it a horse. Just use Git. This sounds clever, but it isn't right: Git has no equivalent to consensus for transaction correctness, for example. It has no equivalent to smart contracts. It has no peer discovery mechanism. It has no automatic transaction propagation mechanism. And on... Executive summary : "there may be a pony in there somewhere"
      - Moodles 8y ago
        We sound quite similar. I also accidentally ended up working in this space a few months ago and started off incredibly cynical (my first meeting telling everyone there I don't think there are any useful applications relevant to the business whatsoever). Looks like I went one way (getting out and doing something else) and you stuck around :-) I hope you are right and the technology is actually useful for humanity. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think I am. I conjecture that blockchains have no applications beyond cryptocurrency. I hope someone can give me a very simple counterexample. I've seen blockchains for the music industry, for porn, for university, for bananas in Laos, for weed, for voting, for "supply chain" something or other. I've never seen an application explained simply that makes sense. I am highly skeptical of the field.

askmike 8y ago

> Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git. Because with git you either go: - The linux way with one upstream and everyone branching of the "main" repo: In a lot of ways everyone is relying on the centralized main repo of linux, and in every other way they disagree on the final state (eg. the final code). - The "github" way where there is one version hosted on a centralized service that everyone needs to trust. Beyond the obvious security problems when trying to use git for actually important data ( for example: https://shattered.io/ https://shattered.io/ ), git doesn't help you in any way to come to a consensus about what happened and in what order. Instead it gives tools to rewrite history as how you see fit (like rebase).

Moodles 8y ago
Basically in both cases the problem is a centralized repo, right? That's not really a problem with signed commits though, is it? E.g. Google's certificate transparency or Keybase. At this point we are arguing over the definition of Git vs private blockchain though. I just don't get the hype. Merkle trees have been around since the 70s.
- askmike 8y ago
  Well in the first case the problem is the lack of centralized repo: there are a million and one forks of linux, and they are all linux however they have all different code (Linus maintains the one that most people call linux, but there all Linux nonetheless). Imagine if it wasn't code, but financial data that would not really work.. The problem with git is that it doesn't allow you to form any consensus with a group of people (that you can't always trust). git's answer to 2 people committing to the same file is to throw a merge conflict in your face: Git is saying: I can't figure out what the truth anymore, so please tell me. That only works if you can trust everyone. > Merkle trees have been around since the 70s. Blockchains didn't reinvent many things, 95% of a blockchain is basic cryptography. Merkle trees are awesome and they are used as well (for example when grouping transactions into blocks within Bitcoin). The reason why you need more than a merkle tree is because a merkle tree doesn't help you if: - You can't trust one single party to maintain (or host) the whole thing: yes you can use digital signatures to make sure they don't forge what you said. But what if they deny you access and ignore your messages? What if they change the order people said things? A merkle tree can't protect you from this. - You need to agree with other people in what order certain things happened, this is a hard problem in networks / distributed systems. Especially if you have actors trying to manipulate this very thing. - You need to align incentives in a way that breaking the complete system is infeasible from a financial point of view. ---- Take Bitcoin as an example, a (kind of) anonymous payment system in the internet, the only things protecting everyone's money are public/private cryptography and the costs involved with rewriting history (51% attack). Bad actors attack it every day, but no matter who's door the police kicks in you only have to trust cryptography (the only other weak link is your personal private key, so if you they hit in your door - but there is no other middlemen). > I just don't get the hype. There is a ton of hype, and whether it's valid or not depends on if the world needs such a system. Blockchain proponents say that once you have a stable decentralized system that can run any code and cannot be corrupted in any way, you will see innovation flourishing similar to the internet: the internet brought complete freedom of information (and industries build on top were not imaginable in the 80s), some people think the blockchain will bring freedom to anything that is (or should be) scarce. Like money and commodities.

JBReefer 8y ago

This is a good exercise that the other answers fail at the twist. Git is a blockchain, and sometimes a private one.

Moodles 8y ago
Yes, this is what I expect to happen. 1. Satoshi comes up with this clever blockchain thing with proof of work and hashing and append-only characteristics. It solves a very specific problem. 2. It involves money and new tech so business people get on the bandwagon and tell the boffins to investigate. 3. There's a lot of hype and good publicity for it (e.g. KodakCoin, Long Island Iced Tea Blockchain) 4. The technology as Satoshi defines it is actually pretty useless for their application. So they bend the definition slightly. Blockchain becomes Git or something with a signature or hashing or even a Merkle Tree. 5. Git etc is actually useful sometimes. The blockchain prophecy is complete. The business people are happy. The boffins don't do anything really, but everyone gets paid so nobody really cares.