3 ms·

> To be clear, what are you trying to convince me of? The target keeps moving. Are you trying to convince me that a blockchain is needed instead of Git for a cu

> To be clear, what are you trying to convince me of? The target keeps moving. Are you trying to convince me that a blockchain is needed instead of Git for a currency like Bitcoin? In that case I agree. In fact I conjecture that blockchains are only useful for cryptocurrency. Or, are you trying to convince me that a blockchain is useful for businesses for something like “the supply chain” or whatever, without any cryptocurrency? If so, then I disagree. I just went on explaining why you want to use a blockchain (private or not) instead of git. It's a broad question so you'll get a broad answer. This is the only thing I went into: > Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git. I haven't talked about anything else. If you want to know what people think about using blockchains for A and B, you should ask that instead. My target hasn't moved at all. > try to explain to me as simply as possible how a blockchain with “proof of authority” is better to Git with signed commits. I specifically explained where an append-only merkle tree doesn't cut it in the comment you just replied to (my previous one). Note that git is an append-only merkle tree. You are more than welcome to go into my points. > It’s not particularly novel, and replicating the database across all nodes of the network and constantly engaging on a consensus protocol to agree on the state of the network while all peers are trusted anyway with proof of authority seems quite useless. If all peers are completely trusted you are 100% correct, if you trust everyone completely you don't need a blockchain. However in the real world trust isn't binary. If a bunch of banks KYC each other and go into a blockchain consortium, they do this specifically because they don't trust each other enough. Else they would have gone with a straight forward solution like git a decade ago.

Moodles 8y ago
You talked about bitcoin. That's entirely different to a "private blockchain". So that is why I think the target keeps moving in this conversation. Or are you suggesting proof of work or something? If so, then I am exiting out of this conversation :-) Anyways, perhaps a better exercise to clarify would be: Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency.
- askmike 8y ago
  > You talked about bitcoin. That's entirely different to a "private blockchain". I never said they were the same, however the similarity is that they are both blockchain systems. And you cannot achieve the same with git for exactly the same reason (you cna't trust all parties). > Or are you suggesting proof of work or something? Nope, definitely not. Not sure what made you think that? > Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency. There are loads all over commodity trade finance and supply chain (the field I have experience). But I've spend an hour typing an answer out your initial question: > Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git. And now you state you aren't really interested in that explanation and want to have clarification on something completely different. I'm done with typing out "examples and clarifications" when as soon as I do you start asking a different question, never going into my points. So "I am exiting out of this conversation :-)"
  - Moodles 8y ago
    I know why you would use a blockchain: for cryptocurrency like bitcoin. As I say, I conjecture there are no other applications. You made me think you might be suggesting some proof of work scheme instead of "proof of authority" because the example you chose was bitcoin. You also said: "You need to align incentives in a way that breaking the complete system is infeasible from a financial point of view.". So that's why I thought of it. Apologies if I was mistaken. I don't quite understand why this conversation is getting heated for you. Perhaps because it is your career so you feel personally attacked or something. That's not my intention. Anyways, I'm still none the wiser as to why to use a "private blockchain". Blocking commits or whatever isn't really solved by a private blockchain. You don't need a blockchain for the problem of changing the order people said things either. And how many banking consortia were really moaning about these issues before a blockchain came along? A blockchain seems like a solution looking for a problem most of the time. Comments like this: > 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. Comparing blockchain to the internet? I think that is just crazy la la land. I really hope I'm wrong because that sounds amazing. (Although I have no idea what "that" is, but the internet was a good thing and I like good things.) But I'm definitely not. But anyways I agree with you that we should stop.

Moodles 8y ago

You talked about bitcoin. That's entirely different to a "private blockchain". So that is why I think the target keeps moving in this conversation. Or are you suggesting proof of work or something? If so, then I am exiting out of this conversation :-) Anyways, perhaps a better exercise to clarify would be: Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency.

askmike 8y ago
> You talked about bitcoin. That's entirely different to a "private blockchain". I never said they were the same, however the similarity is that they are both blockchain systems. And you cannot achieve the same with git for exactly the same reason (you cna't trust all parties). > Or are you suggesting proof of work or something? Nope, definitely not. Not sure what made you think that? > Find a single example where a (precisely defined) type of blockchain makes sense vs possible alternatives such as solutions along the lines of Git, CT, etc. I conjecture that there are none beyond cryptocurrency. There are loads all over commodity trade finance and supply chain (the field I have experience). But I've spend an hour typing an answer out your initial question: > Exercise for the blockchain advocates: explain as simply as possible why a “private blockchain” is better than Git. And now you state you aren't really interested in that explanation and want to have clarification on something completely different. I'm done with typing out "examples and clarifications" when as soon as I do you start asking a different question, never going into my points. So "I am exiting out of this conversation :-)"
- Moodles 8y ago
  I know why you would use a blockchain: for cryptocurrency like bitcoin. As I say, I conjecture there are no other applications. You made me think you might be suggesting some proof of work scheme instead of "proof of authority" because the example you chose was bitcoin. You also said: "You need to align incentives in a way that breaking the complete system is infeasible from a financial point of view.". So that's why I thought of it. Apologies if I was mistaken. I don't quite understand why this conversation is getting heated for you. Perhaps because it is your career so you feel personally attacked or something. That's not my intention. Anyways, I'm still none the wiser as to why to use a "private blockchain". Blocking commits or whatever isn't really solved by a private blockchain. You don't need a blockchain for the problem of changing the order people said things either. And how many banking consortia were really moaning about these issues before a blockchain came along? A blockchain seems like a solution looking for a problem most of the time. Comments like this: > 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. Comparing blockchain to the internet? I think that is just crazy la la land. I really hope I'm wrong because that sounds amazing. (Although I have no idea what "that" is, but the internet was a good thing and I like good things.) But I'm definitely not. But anyways I agree with you that we should stop.