4 ms·

or it could be that blockchains have limited usefulness outside the world of zero trust currency. From a spade-a-spade point of view, blockchains are very slow

or it could be that blockchains have limited usefulness outside the world of zero trust currency. From a spade-a-spade point of view, blockchains are very slow,expensive and limited log database.

wpasc 8y ago
This needs to be said more and more. Posted as a reply to every stupid LinkedIn "Blockchain to cure cancer" type post. Everywhere. So maybe we can pass over the hype hump and let blockchain settle into its natural use cases.
- darawk 8y ago
  It's use isn't solely currency, though. Git is a blockchain, for instance. I do agree that it's overhyped, and a large portion of people trying to use it right now are doing so incorrectly, but it does have a broader use case than currency.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    No. Git is a Merkle tree, a concept invented by Ralph Merkle in '79. The blockchain also uses a Merkle tree. Git is not a blockchain.
    - darawk 8y ago
      A merkle tree is a blockchain. If you disagree, do feel free to tell me how you think that they differ.
      - KaiserPro 8y ago
        A Block chain must be write only & resistant to tampering, via global consensus. Git isn't write only, you can rebase. Its can't handle global consensus. You can read other peoples "world" and merge into yours, but it cannot aggregate the consensus and reject "illegitimate" change. You have two choices: "ours" or "theirs"
        darawk 8y ago
        > A Block chain must be write only Write only? You can't read a blockchain? Does that mean bitcoin isn't a blockchain because of sites like www.blockchain.info ? > & resistant to tampering, via global consensus. Just don't allow pushes, only pull things. Voila, tamper resistance.
jondubois 8y ago
As someone who works on a major blockchain project, I agree with this statement. Blockchain only has one major use case; cryptocurrency. The main purpose of cryptocurrency is to replace the role of debt in our economy. The value of a cryptocurrency is determined by the economic value provided by entities which use that cryptocurrency as a medium of payment for goods and services. Because anyone can issue a cryptocurrency, the underlying tokens can behave like shares in a company. Cryptocurrencies are better than shares in that they exist outside the laws of any single country. The ownership of tokens is not enforced by law, it is enforced by mathematics and your own ability to keep your passphrases secret.
- otabdeveloper2 8y ago
  > Blockchain only has one major use case; cryptocurrency. Currencies have value only because governments force everyone to use them for paying taxes and welfare. Your 'tokens-as-shares' vision is flawed, because at the end of the day it devolves into a million little barter schemes, and barter sucks. (As we discovered back in the bronze age.) The only place where blockchain could provide a use is with smart contracts. If you've experienced buying or selling real estate, then you understand how insanely inefficient low-trust, high-value deals can be. Anything that removes this friction would be a great boon.
  - jondubois 8y ago
    >> Currencies have value only because governments force everyone to use them for paying taxes and welfare. I used to think this but I don't anymore. Taxes are just one of multiple reasons why currencies have value. Some countries have no taxes and yet their currencies still have value. >> Your 'tokens-as-shares' vision is flawed, because at the end of the day it devolves into a million little barter schemes How is this different from the stock market? If you own shares of one company and you want to buy shares in a different company, you need to sell your existing shares for an intermediate currency first. It's a lot easier to do this using cryptocurrencies though (using Bitcoin as the intermediate). Using tokens to pay for services is a proven concept; plane tickets, movie tickets, concert tickets, metal tokens for laundromats, food stamps, prepaid data quota for internet access... These are all tokens - the main difference is that they are issued by a central authority. Cryptocurrencies open the door for universal services that have no central authority. They create an environment in which competitors can collaborate and mutually benefit through open source work.

or it could be that blockchains have limited usefulness outside the world of zero trust currency. From a spade-a-spade point of view, blockchains are very slow,expensive and limited log database.

wpasc 8y ago

This needs to be said more and more. Posted as a reply to every stupid LinkedIn "Blockchain to cure cancer" type post. Everywhere. So maybe we can pass over the hype hump and let blockchain settle into its natural use cases.

darawk 8y ago
It's use isn't solely currency, though. Git is a blockchain, for instance. I do agree that it's overhyped, and a large portion of people trying to use it right now are doing so incorrectly, but it does have a broader use case than currency.
- icebraining 8y ago
  No. Git is a Merkle tree, a concept invented by Ralph Merkle in '79. The blockchain also uses a Merkle tree. Git is not a blockchain.
  - darawk 8y ago
    A merkle tree is a blockchain. If you disagree, do feel free to tell me how you think that they differ.
    - KaiserPro 8y ago
      A Block chain must be write only & resistant to tampering, via global consensus. Git isn't write only, you can rebase. Its can't handle global consensus. You can read other peoples "world" and merge into yours, but it cannot aggregate the consensus and reject "illegitimate" change. You have two choices: "ours" or "theirs"
      - darawk 8y ago
        > A Block chain must be write only Write only? You can't read a blockchain? Does that mean bitcoin isn't a blockchain because of sites like www.blockchain.info ? > & resistant to tampering, via global consensus. Just don't allow pushes, only pull things. Voila, tamper resistance.

jondubois 8y ago

As someone who works on a major blockchain project, I agree with this statement. Blockchain only has one major use case; cryptocurrency. The main purpose of cryptocurrency is to replace the role of debt in our economy. The value of a cryptocurrency is determined by the economic value provided by entities which use that cryptocurrency as a medium of payment for goods and services. Because anyone can issue a cryptocurrency, the underlying tokens can behave like shares in a company. Cryptocurrencies are better than shares in that they exist outside the laws of any single country. The ownership of tokens is not enforced by law, it is enforced by mathematics and your own ability to keep your passphrases secret.

otabdeveloper2 8y ago
> Blockchain only has one major use case; cryptocurrency. Currencies have value only because governments force everyone to use them for paying taxes and welfare. Your 'tokens-as-shares' vision is flawed, because at the end of the day it devolves into a million little barter schemes, and barter sucks. (As we discovered back in the bronze age.) The only place where blockchain could provide a use is with smart contracts. If you've experienced buying or selling real estate, then you understand how insanely inefficient low-trust, high-value deals can be. Anything that removes this friction would be a great boon.
- jondubois 8y ago
  >> Currencies have value only because governments force everyone to use them for paying taxes and welfare. I used to think this but I don't anymore. Taxes are just one of multiple reasons why currencies have value. Some countries have no taxes and yet their currencies still have value. >> Your 'tokens-as-shares' vision is flawed, because at the end of the day it devolves into a million little barter schemes How is this different from the stock market? If you own shares of one company and you want to buy shares in a different company, you need to sell your existing shares for an intermediate currency first. It's a lot easier to do this using cryptocurrencies though (using Bitcoin as the intermediate). Using tokens to pay for services is a proven concept; plane tickets, movie tickets, concert tickets, metal tokens for laundromats, food stamps, prepaid data quota for internet access... These are all tokens - the main difference is that they are issued by a central authority. Cryptocurrencies open the door for universal services that have no central authority. They create an environment in which competitors can collaborate and mutually benefit through open source work.