9 ms·

Now explain to a technical audience why some people say nonsense like how it’s the next internet or how it’ll change the world please.

easymodex 8y ago
Well it has great potential to remove a lot of beaurocracy related stuff. It's not really the next internet but it can very easily change the world if it's properly implemented. But if you're talking specifically about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin then I assume you're a bit salty because you think you missed the hype. Don't worry tho, we are still early adopters.
- Moodles 8y ago
  I actually conjecture that blockchains are only useful for cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. It's when you see companies using them for tracking their supply chain, their music, their photos, their porn, their bananas in Laos, their weed, that I roll my eyes into the back of my skull. There's no way it has any potential to simplify any beaurcracy, unless you think introducing multiple nodes on a network and constantly making them talk to agree on their own databases is simple. People always compare blockchain in banks to banks using pen and paper. Why not just banks using computers?
  - yarrel 8y ago
    Trust. If you are a small producer and you send a shipment of your widgets to Wal Mart, and Wal Mart then say "what widgets?", the efficiency of their SQL Server installation isn't a benefit that will bring you much comfort. If you are a small producer and you send a shipment of your widgets to Wal Mart with little rfid stickers on tracked by a blockchain system that you, the shipping company, border security, Wal Mart's warehouse and Wal Mart's stores run nodes for, you have a system that may bring you a bit more comfort. Running a node is simpler (or at least more efficient - pen and paper is simpler than SQL Server...), and the outcomes more encouraging for all participants, than some of the alternatives. The question "Why not just banks using computers?" is where distributed timestamp servers came in and there is an extensive literature devoted to both the ideological and practical arguments around this. Briefly because banks are untrustworthy, expensive and slow. Banks themselves using blockchains is recuperation ideologically speaking, and FOMO technologically speaking. It is less silly to the degree that it does improve banking transparency and trustworthiness, but abandoning proof-of-of-work for the nonsense of "permissioned" blockchains restores it to being very silly.
    - TheDong 8y ago
      We have a shipment tracking system now without blockchain. > little rfid stickers on them ... If the problem you're trying to solve is the one you say, you might as well just run a few servers across different organizations / companies which replicate between themselves, like certificate transparency does, or like the gpg web of trust does... which isn't a blockchain because it's vastly more efficient.
      - dlubarov 8y ago
        A CT-style system could work for supply chains, but let's say for the sake of convenience, we wanted to use some shared storage system rather than building a new system for supply chains only. We could have one big CT-style log system host many applications, but as the number of participants grew, we would want some mechanism to prevent spam. Even if there was no outright spam, some users would generate a large volume of logs with questionable utility, and humans would need to get together to decide if those users should be blacklisted or what. Ethereum gives us spam control via gas costs. I can't imagine a good, low-maintenance solution that doesn't resemble some cryptocurrency. Paying fees from a ledger isn't absolutely necessary -- we could proof of work to discourage spam, like iota -- but charging fees in a ledger seems like the better solution, and isn't that much more complicated.
lucozade 8y ago
That's relatively easy. 1) Some people are ignorant; 2) Some people are trolls; 3) And some people have an agenda e.g. they're trying to get folk in 1) to buy something.
gibsons77 8y ago
Well.. It will change some aspects of our world. Particularly financial assets at first, but increasingly it will play a role in any peer to peer exchange requiring trust. Simple past examples are systems like OpenPGP that bind public keys to owners. Programmable blockchains allow generalized applications requiring decentralized trust. A good example of a use of blockchain outside of financial assets is in trust management of vehicular networks. In order for vehicles to communicate amongst each other, they need to trust that the messages they are receiving are authentic using a decentralized consensus mechanism and some sort of Bayesian Inference Model. So in short, it is an extension of the internet (trust layer) and it will change the world. So I don't think that's nonsense to say, but I can see how these claims would appear to be exaggerated to someone with limited exposure to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.
- Moodles 8y ago
  I have a PhD in cryptography. Please be precise. Exactly what problem will blockchain solve for vehicles? You can't just hand wave and say stuff like "decentralized trust management" and expect us to nod along.
  - easymodex 8y ago
    Trust and transparency.
    - Moodles 8y ago
      Are you capable of being precise?
  - the_snooze 8y ago
    Yeah, I'm quite skeptical of it as well. If I'm being really charitable to it, then it's a way to synchronize data between parties without relying on a trusted intermediary. That said, it's unclear what practical value that has outside of purely digital applications like cryptocurrency. When you roll it into things in the real world (e.g., supply chains, health records, etc.) then you necessarily have to trust the data sources and sensors, at which point what good is a blockchain?
tom_ 8y ago
These people want VC money. (I can imagine some genuine uses, but I'm not interested in explaining them to people, especially not technical people with an axe to grind. So boring! Much quicker and easier just to say nothing, sit tight, see what happens, and find out that way whether I'm wrong or not. Most technical people are myopically technical anyway, and the technical side is just not the interesting bit here.)
- bloomer 8y ago
  Funny because I think a lot of technical people would say that the technical side is the only interesting part of block chain, i.e. it’s a neat data structure. However, every proposed use of it neglects all of the other non-technical aspects of human society. Hence all the calls by people with understanding of the technology for explanations of where it could actually be applied in society.
lawn 8y ago
> how it’ll change the world please. Permissionless and trustless digital payments truly has the power to change the world. It arguably already has with the rise of darknet markets and cryptojacking. Think of all the movies where a suitcase of cash must be delivered to a drop off spot, this now all goes away. But the bigger picture includes making it much easier and safer for business which cannot take credit cards to accept payments. Think donations to wikileaks, porn and marijuana businesses. Think about what it means for people to control their own money in case of a crisis. In places like Venezuela people are already using cryptocurrencies to avoid inflation, a corrupt government and to cross the border with their wealth intact. Charities like eatBCH uses cryptocurrency to send people money into the country in order to buy food. Yet another step back, if cryptocurrencies would truly catch on and replace government backed fiat for general use, then it's not as easy to simply "print more money" to get away from financial troubles. Banks might then have to take responsibility for their actions instead of getting bailout after bailout.
tim333 8y ago
It's already changed the world a bit - CryptoLocker, dark web drug purchases and Ponzi like ICOs wouldn't have been the same without it. It's also consumed epic amounts of electricity and warmed the planet a bit. I hope some positive changes come too.
qnmaster 8y ago
There's a lot of bullshit, but it would be a huge mistake to assume that there's nothing significant there. Check out the Bitcoin whitepaper for a technical primer.

easymodex 8y ago

Well it has great potential to remove a lot of beaurocracy related stuff. It's not really the next internet but it can very easily change the world if it's properly implemented. But if you're talking specifically about cryptocurrencies and bitcoin then I assume you're a bit salty because you think you missed the hype. Don't worry tho, we are still early adopters.

Moodles 8y ago
I actually conjecture that blockchains are only useful for cryptocurrencies like bitcoin. It's when you see companies using them for tracking their supply chain, their music, their photos, their porn, their bananas in Laos, their weed, that I roll my eyes into the back of my skull. There's no way it has any potential to simplify any beaurcracy, unless you think introducing multiple nodes on a network and constantly making them talk to agree on their own databases is simple. People always compare blockchain in banks to banks using pen and paper. Why not just banks using computers?
- yarrel 8y ago
  Trust. If you are a small producer and you send a shipment of your widgets to Wal Mart, and Wal Mart then say "what widgets?", the efficiency of their SQL Server installation isn't a benefit that will bring you much comfort. If you are a small producer and you send a shipment of your widgets to Wal Mart with little rfid stickers on tracked by a blockchain system that you, the shipping company, border security, Wal Mart's warehouse and Wal Mart's stores run nodes for, you have a system that may bring you a bit more comfort. Running a node is simpler (or at least more efficient - pen and paper is simpler than SQL Server...), and the outcomes more encouraging for all participants, than some of the alternatives. The question "Why not just banks using computers?" is where distributed timestamp servers came in and there is an extensive literature devoted to both the ideological and practical arguments around this. Briefly because banks are untrustworthy, expensive and slow. Banks themselves using blockchains is recuperation ideologically speaking, and FOMO technologically speaking. It is less silly to the degree that it does improve banking transparency and trustworthiness, but abandoning proof-of-of-work for the nonsense of "permissioned" blockchains restores it to being very silly.
  - TheDong 8y ago
    We have a shipment tracking system now without blockchain. > little rfid stickers on them ... If the problem you're trying to solve is the one you say, you might as well just run a few servers across different organizations / companies which replicate between themselves, like certificate transparency does, or like the gpg web of trust does... which isn't a blockchain because it's vastly more efficient.
    - dlubarov 8y ago
      A CT-style system could work for supply chains, but let's say for the sake of convenience, we wanted to use some shared storage system rather than building a new system for supply chains only. We could have one big CT-style log system host many applications, but as the number of participants grew, we would want some mechanism to prevent spam. Even if there was no outright spam, some users would generate a large volume of logs with questionable utility, and humans would need to get together to decide if those users should be blacklisted or what. Ethereum gives us spam control via gas costs. I can't imagine a good, low-maintenance solution that doesn't resemble some cryptocurrency. Paying fees from a ledger isn't absolutely necessary -- we could proof of work to discourage spam, like iota -- but charging fees in a ledger seems like the better solution, and isn't that much more complicated.

lucozade 8y ago

That's relatively easy. 1) Some people are ignorant; 2) Some people are trolls; 3) And some people have an agenda e.g. they're trying to get folk in 1) to buy something.

gibsons77 8y ago

Well.. It will change some aspects of our world. Particularly financial assets at first, but increasingly it will play a role in any peer to peer exchange requiring trust. Simple past examples are systems like OpenPGP that bind public keys to owners. Programmable blockchains allow generalized applications requiring decentralized trust. A good example of a use of blockchain outside of financial assets is in trust management of vehicular networks. In order for vehicles to communicate amongst each other, they need to trust that the messages they are receiving are authentic using a decentralized consensus mechanism and some sort of Bayesian Inference Model. So in short, it is an extension of the internet (trust layer) and it will change the world. So I don't think that's nonsense to say, but I can see how these claims would appear to be exaggerated to someone with limited exposure to Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

Moodles 8y ago
I have a PhD in cryptography. Please be precise. Exactly what problem will blockchain solve for vehicles? You can't just hand wave and say stuff like "decentralized trust management" and expect us to nod along.
- easymodex 8y ago
  Trust and transparency.
  - Moodles 8y ago
    Are you capable of being precise?
- the_snooze 8y ago
  Yeah, I'm quite skeptical of it as well. If I'm being really charitable to it, then it's a way to synchronize data between parties without relying on a trusted intermediary. That said, it's unclear what practical value that has outside of purely digital applications like cryptocurrency. When you roll it into things in the real world (e.g., supply chains, health records, etc.) then you necessarily have to trust the data sources and sensors, at which point what good is a blockchain?

tom_ 8y ago

These people want VC money. (I can imagine some genuine uses, but I'm not interested in explaining them to people, especially not technical people with an axe to grind. So boring! Much quicker and easier just to say nothing, sit tight, see what happens, and find out that way whether I'm wrong or not. Most technical people are myopically technical anyway, and the technical side is just not the interesting bit here.)

bloomer 8y ago
Funny because I think a lot of technical people would say that the technical side is the only interesting part of block chain, i.e. it’s a neat data structure. However, every proposed use of it neglects all of the other non-technical aspects of human society. Hence all the calls by people with understanding of the technology for explanations of where it could actually be applied in society.

lawn 8y ago

> how it’ll change the world please. Permissionless and trustless digital payments truly has the power to change the world. It arguably already has with the rise of darknet markets and cryptojacking. Think of all the movies where a suitcase of cash must be delivered to a drop off spot, this now all goes away. But the bigger picture includes making it much easier and safer for business which cannot take credit cards to accept payments. Think donations to wikileaks, porn and marijuana businesses. Think about what it means for people to control their own money in case of a crisis. In places like Venezuela people are already using cryptocurrencies to avoid inflation, a corrupt government and to cross the border with their wealth intact. Charities like eatBCH uses cryptocurrency to send people money into the country in order to buy food. Yet another step back, if cryptocurrencies would truly catch on and replace government backed fiat for general use, then it's not as easy to simply "print more money" to get away from financial troubles. Banks might then have to take responsibility for their actions instead of getting bailout after bailout.

tim333 8y ago

It's already changed the world a bit - CryptoLocker, dark web drug purchases and Ponzi like ICOs wouldn't have been the same without it. It's also consumed epic amounts of electricity and warmed the planet a bit. I hope some positive changes come too.

qnmaster 8y ago

There's a lot of bullshit, but it would be a huge mistake to assume that there's nothing significant there. Check out the Bitcoin whitepaper for a technical primer.