9 ms·

No, you don't need a blockchain

76 points by DataPrivacy 8y ago

bespoken 8y ago
> Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity. So, if that sounds like you, then yes, you should consider using blockchain. Oh my, this is soo opinionated and short sighted, it starts with complete rubbish, pointless read I guess.
- 666lumberjack 8y ago
  Do people not use bitcoin to purchase drugs anonymously on the Internet?
  - azamatms 8y ago
    Do people not use cash to buy drugs?
    - 666lumberjack 8y ago
      Not on the internet, as far as I'm aware.
      - brokenmachine 8y ago
        Lots of dummies use Facebook to arrange cash drug transactions. Does that count?
azamatms 8y ago
The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases. There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a centralized database. However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example. > many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So, they use blockchain to generate coins, but don’t use blockchain to handle payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a moment.]
- dplavery92 8y ago
  > Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases. I am unaware of any non-currency use case where blockchain brings any advantages to bear.
  - sharemywin 8y ago
    Anonymous Free speech. Some kind of electronic notary service. - version labeling for code You could tie a website to a bitcoin address by posting a file that had a hash which was written to the not in bitcoin.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      How would a blockchain help for an Anonymous Free speech usecase? Serious question.
dnautics 8y ago
> Or, if you’re running a large logistics company with one or more supply chains made up of many different vendors, and need to identify, track, trace, or source the items in the supply chain, then blockchain may be the solution for you as well. Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this? Why not just an evented database with a signature field and periodic hashes?
- ssalka 8y ago
  How would you prevent a rogue developer from updating/deleting events? Even if you could tell from the hashes that something changed, you would lose whatever data the dev changed. Backups can help mitigate this, but not until after the fact.
  - larrysalibra 8y ago
    The same way American Express, Visa, the Automated Clearing House and your bank prevent rogue developers from updating/deleting your money: With internal security processes, threat of termination and ultimately the legal system.
  - syrgian 8y ago
    Have database replicas that only listen to INSERT statements (easy to implement in My/Maria SQL with BEFORE triggers), and design the software that works with the DB as append-only.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Right. Or any other append-only system, really. I mean, one wouldn't ask "how do you prevent someone from deleting an email they sent you earlier?"
  - the_gastropod 8y ago
    Not necessarily. Think of git. Git is not a blockchain. If a rogue developer deletes code and/or rewrites history and forces a push, I will know and can undo that rather easily.
esotericn 8y ago
Terminology is such a pain in the arse. "A blockchain" has been sufficiently generalised by now in common usage that you may as well state "a thing". Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. It depends what sort of thing you're doing.
- jniedrauer 8y ago
  > Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. Why, yes. Yes I do. Thank you for asking.
  - esotericn 8y ago
    I've got just the thing for that. Shameless plug: you may enjoy my consulting company. We relocate electrons for you, so you don't have to. https://electronrelocation.com https://electronrelocation.com
mrharrison 8y ago
For those on the "you don't need a blockchain hype train." I suggest your write a dApp, and see how easy it is to connect to a highly fault tolerant function as a service that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. There is a lot more to blockchain than what is discussed in this article.
- wmf 8y ago
  So basically Lambda?
  - dsr_ 8y ago
    Only in a log-structured environment that means that once you deploy, you probably never have a chance to patch the bugs.
    - jjordan 8y ago
      There are ways of making smart contracts upgradeable. The code is immutable, but it can also say "if x has been toggled, point to this newly uploaded contract instead."
      - dsr_ 8y ago
        Let's assume that you set that up properly, so that the toggle is flipped only when a particular signed update tells it the address of the replacement contract. Yay! Please put ether into this contract, it will benefit all participants. Later: upload new contract, flip the toggle: all your ether belongs to me. Thanks!
- mbesto 8y ago
  For those on the "blockchain hype train", I suggest you find a business solution that requires a dApp. > that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. Outside of crypto (mainly bitcoin), what business problem exists for this problem today and what blockchain solution has been created to solve it? I've genuinely waited for people to provide a serious answer to this and I'm still waiting for an answer.
vidanay 8y ago
What happens when blockchain "databases" grow to multiple terrabytes or petabytes? This presents a huge barrier to spinning up a new validation (mining) node. Are there plans for sharding blockchains?
- azamatms 8y ago
  Bitcoin for example (and many others), will prune old blocks that are no longer required to make transactions on the network. If a block has all unspent inputs used up, the block will be pruned
  - vidanay 8y ago
    That is a logical solution for Bitcoin. Doesn't Etherium track transactions back to the beginning of time though? That sounds like a Shlemiel The Painter problem.
    - azamatms 8y ago
      There's already full-node implementations that address state tree pruning: https://wiki.parity.io/Getting-Synced#database-pruning https://wiki.parity.io/Getting-Synced#database-pruning
    - vidanay 8y ago
      @azamatms Thanks!
- zeroxfe 8y ago
  Yes, there are (and some that already do), but doing it correctly is actually pretty complicated. Checkout Ethereum's sharding docs: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs
  - vidanay 8y ago
    Wow, that's some light reading for later!
equalarrow 8y ago
Here we go again.. First issue with the post: "Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity." Let's see, there's this thing called _cash_ and you don't need an id to buy drugs with it as well. Weapons can be purchased easily with it. Hits can be put out on people with it. Basically, anything bad in the world anyone would want to do that requires a payment, can be done with cash. The biggest 'offender' in this - the US dollar. Next: "Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!" Bullshit - in regard to backing up. Of course it doesn't need to be 'backed up'. It exists in its entirety across the globe, replicated on many thousands of machines, in many different countries. Hmmm, sounds like 'big replication' problem solved. (Marc Andreessen likes it anyway: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/) The fact is, it is amazing because it's been running like this for over a decade now with NO HACKS, no data breaches, no hiding of anything based on this scandal or the next. No one company owns it. No one government owns it. And it's worth billions of dollars (meh). It does sound amazing to me. "Blockchain should make your system more trustworthy, but it does the opposite. Blockchain pushes the burden of trust onto individuals adding transactions to the blockchain. This is how all distributed systems work. The burden of trust goes from a central entity to all participants. And this is the inherent problem with blockchain." Snooze, bullshit... It is a FACT nowadays that the centralization of the internet has been bad for it. Even the inventor of it has come out against it. Putting trust in a third party is never a good idea in my mind. Strong encryption exists and it empowers the individual to USE IT. When I make a bitcoin transaction, I sign that transaction as valid. Me. I don't need a bank or a government or any other third party to make this happen. This is lost on many people, but having the freedom to transact securely and encrypt YOUR data is about as important of a concept as there can be nowadays. There are many government and corporate entities that do not want you to have this capability (I'm looking at you 'Senator' Feinstein..). You may have to trust Apple to provide 'secure' environments to run your/others apps, but they are not working in your interests and will change course as soon as it suits their profits. Anyway, this is a stupid article, to be blunt. It's from someone who is rallying against the marketing of blockchain and instead of taking on those messages/issues/marketing directly, he falls into the same trap as the rest of the naysayers. If you talk to a _real_ blockchain/crypto developer/advocate, they will probably tell you this: "if you want to make a immutable, open, distributed transactional database that isn't blindingly fast, then using a blockchain that has cryptographically signed transactions might be a good idea.". Ethereum has taken this a step further with smart contracts, which, have more or less worked. But NO ONE I know or talk to on a day to day is saying use a blockchain for your app database needs. And anyone who does, does not know what they are talking about and should probably be fired from any development position they hold. What is happening right now in this space is the smart people have their heads down and are cranking on the next generation of tech that everyone will be using in 5-10 years. The smart investors see this as well and are all positioning themselves as we speak. I personally stopped working on _legacy_ tech last year and am 100% exclusive on crypto and blockchain products. I have already seen this movie before twice: the first episode was called the web, the second was called mobile. So, hate if you will but it won't change anything. The early adopter wave is at the end and we'll see more mass adoption in the coming years. Good luck! TLDR; stupid article, known inaccuracies, known typical trolling content. Move along..
jetzzz 8y ago
Ability to create tokens and make money out of it has created a lot of unnecessary hype. Blockchain has its use-cases, but not as many as some want it to have.
supermatt 8y ago
Whilst I agree with the general statement of this article, it seems the author doesnt understand that there are different kinds of "blockchain" than that used by bitcoin
chaosmail 8y ago
I think Blockchain technology as distributed immutable ledger is a very nice data structure for a lot of real world use cases (supply chain, market place, contracts,..). Sure it's also a huge hype thanks to crypto currencies, icos, etc. but the technology fulfills a need. However, I see more advantages in using private quorums leveraging proof of authority instead of public networks of untrusted nodes. I understand that not everyone might be ok with this tradeoff.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Distributed immutable logs of data existed long before the Blockchain (as someone pointed out, Git is a good example - just sign your commits). The innovation of the Blockchain was specifically the combination of that with the POW, which enabled coordination between untrusted nodes without falling prey to Sybil attacks. A private blockchain is just giving another name to a preexisting model. It's like saying "I use a pedelec, but I see more advantages in removing the motor and battery".
swift532 8y ago
From what I see in discussions about blockchain hype, blockchain is conflated with cryptocurrency by largely ignorant opinions on the Internet. I concede this: It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins that boast to be faster than Bitcoin). However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions. Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it 50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One Day™). However, having an open, open source global payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.
- drngdds 8y ago
  >cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, then it's not really democratic.
  - swift532 8y ago
    In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can: - disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith - ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)
    - adamrezich 8y ago
      I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.
chaostheory 8y ago
> Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing! Did he get this wrong? Don't blockchain ledgers always get backed up? Isn't the difference being that instead of just backing up to one place and at one specific time like most database setups, blockchain data is backed up with everyone all the time with every transaction? - which is why it can take hours to just updated one record
- swift532 8y ago
  Yes, you are correct. And also, all of those are useful features (except time taken to update, which is a side-effect of consensus/propagation costs).
spatley 8y ago
“allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity.” Except for the fact that it is kept in a public ledger for eternity.
kirykl 8y ago
It’s easier to just nod yes and take money from your management who’s decided they need a blockchain, than spend time burning bridges in explaining why they don’t
- mooneater 8y ago
  That is sad, life is too short for this.
manishsharan 8y ago
I wish all universities would put student transcripts on a public blockchain, while addressing privacy concerns.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Why?
  - manishsharan 8y ago
    It would make it possible to trust the academic credentials presented by foreign applicants. Currently this process is very cumbersome. Some unversities require applicants to submit notarized transcripts to thirdparty for verification. The process is long and painful. And if the applicant wants to apply in multiple Universities, then they have to get multiple notarized copies of their transcripts. And if they want to apply for post grad , they have to repeat the process for getting notarized transcripts.
    - icebraining 8y ago
      Seems like you'd be better off by a PDF digitally signed by the university (with the public key hosted on their website, for verification). I just saved with a few thousand dollars. Where should I send the bill? :D
decentralised 8y ago
As a professional blockchain developer and someone who believes and works towards decentralisation and the economic emancipation of the under-represented, I find this type of article very sad. The author probably buys his drugs in a store like most people do, but he fixates on the payment technology that can allow other to buy them semi-anonymously and securely in the privacy of their own homes, while ignoring TCP/IP or PHP or whatever browser that needs to be used in the same transaction. This seems like an agenda but experience has thought me that I shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. On the topic of what a blockchain is and what it enables, Thomas is ignorant but also incredibly unaware of his own privilege. I need a public, decentralised blockchain, smart-contracts and cryptoeconomics to bootstrap digital economies that don't rely on advertising or selling user's data. I also need them to help bring electric power, clean water and food to people that don't buy drugs online with the tokens I create. You know why? Because they are too busy trying to survive failed nation-states. Thomas, if you read this, please consider that your opinion is your own and you do have the right to express it anyway you want but for now the only thing you've accomplished is that I will stop using and advising Solarwinds to my customers.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Sounds like another example of the politician's fallacy. Yes, people need those thing, but one can recognize that while still disagreeing that the blockchain will in any significant way help with that. And that kind of argument - "either you're with me or you hate poor people in failed nation-states!" - is just emotional manipulation.
  - decentralised 8y ago
    I might feel more emotional about this because I'm involved right? From my perspective, I'm not appealing to your feelings, I'm telling you that buying drugs is a very small portion of what makes cryptocurrencies relevant and blockchain based commerce a necessity. I was just at a talk where Steward Brand, a man known for the Whole Earth Catalog, the Hackers Conferences, the Mother of all Demos as well as the Trips festival (early SF psy-scene) was showing incredible vitality and enthusiasm about what the Ethereum community is accomplishing right now. Before that, there was this fantastic presentation by Glen Weyl from Radical Markets fame who has a vision for empowering under-privileged and under-represented that relies on blockchain. His work with Vitalik Buterin and others (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656) on Liberal Radicalism is a step forward towards funding of commons and allowing communities to self-organise. At no point during the last 5 days did I hear one person at this conference mention buying drugs with cryptos.
Nuzzerino 8y ago
This article is a clever strawman. Their technical definition of blockchain is accurate, but there is one detail missing which changes everything. Most "blockchain solutions" use smart contracts, which make heavy use of data validation. So I'd review that checklist again, but this time without the need for all parties to trust each other. Yeah, that's a pretty significant difference. It's easy to find valid arguments to support the idea that blockchains are overhyped. But I get the impression that the author's understanding of the subject is outdated. Did the author even bother to do any research on why there was a bubble? It would not have taken more than minutes to stumble across the definition of a smart contract. As they say in cryptoland, this is just FUD.
snambi 8y ago
Seems like a database marketing guy attacking its competitor. LOL

76 points by DataPrivacy 8y ago

> Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity. So, if that sounds like you, then yes, you should consider using blockchain. Oh my, this is soo opinionated and short sighted, it starts with complete rubbish, pointless read I guess.

666lumberjack 8y ago
Do people not use bitcoin to purchase drugs anonymously on the Internet?
- azamatms 8y ago
  Do people not use cash to buy drugs?
  - 666lumberjack 8y ago
    Not on the internet, as far as I'm aware.
    - brokenmachine 8y ago
      Lots of dummies use Facebook to arrange cash drug transactions. Does that count?

azamatms 8y ago

The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases. There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a centralized database. However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example. > many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So, they use blockchain to generate coins, but don’t use blockchain to handle payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a moment.]

dplavery92 8y ago
> Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases. I am unaware of any non-currency use case where blockchain brings any advantages to bear.
- sharemywin 8y ago
  Anonymous Free speech. Some kind of electronic notary service. - version labeling for code You could tie a website to a bitcoin address by posting a file that had a hash which was written to the not in bitcoin.
  - brokenmachine 8y ago
    How would a blockchain help for an Anonymous Free speech usecase? Serious question.

dnautics 8y ago

> Or, if you’re running a large logistics company with one or more supply chains made up of many different vendors, and need to identify, track, trace, or source the items in the supply chain, then blockchain may be the solution for you as well. Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this? Why not just an evented database with a signature field and periodic hashes?

ssalka 8y ago
How would you prevent a rogue developer from updating/deleting events? Even if you could tell from the hashes that something changed, you would lose whatever data the dev changed. Backups can help mitigate this, but not until after the fact.
- larrysalibra 8y ago
  The same way American Express, Visa, the Automated Clearing House and your bank prevent rogue developers from updating/deleting your money: With internal security processes, threat of termination and ultimately the legal system.
- syrgian 8y ago
  Have database replicas that only listen to INSERT statements (easy to implement in My/Maria SQL with BEFORE triggers), and design the software that works with the DB as append-only.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Right. Or any other append-only system, really. I mean, one wouldn't ask "how do you prevent someone from deleting an email they sent you earlier?"
- the_gastropod 8y ago
  Not necessarily. Think of git. Git is not a blockchain. If a rogue developer deletes code and/or rewrites history and forces a push, I will know and can undo that rather easily.

esotericn 8y ago

Terminology is such a pain in the arse. "A blockchain" has been sufficiently generalised by now in common usage that you may as well state "a thing". Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. It depends what sort of thing you're doing.

jniedrauer 8y ago
> Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. Why, yes. Yes I do. Thank you for asking.
- esotericn 8y ago
  I've got just the thing for that. Shameless plug: you may enjoy my consulting company. We relocate electrons for you, so you don't have to. https://electronrelocation.com https://electronrelocation.com

mrharrison 8y ago

For those on the "you don't need a blockchain hype train." I suggest your write a dApp, and see how easy it is to connect to a highly fault tolerant function as a service that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. There is a lot more to blockchain than what is discussed in this article.

wmf 8y ago
So basically Lambda?
- dsr_ 8y ago
  Only in a log-structured environment that means that once you deploy, you probably never have a chance to patch the bugs.
  - jjordan 8y ago
    There are ways of making smart contracts upgradeable. The code is immutable, but it can also say "if x has been toggled, point to this newly uploaded contract instead."
    - dsr_ 8y ago
      Let's assume that you set that up properly, so that the toggle is flipped only when a particular signed update tells it the address of the replacement contract. Yay! Please put ether into this contract, it will benefit all participants. Later: upload new contract, flip the toggle: all your ether belongs to me. Thanks!
mbesto 8y ago
For those on the "blockchain hype train", I suggest you find a business solution that requires a dApp. > that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. Outside of crypto (mainly bitcoin), what business problem exists for this problem today and what blockchain solution has been created to solve it? I've genuinely waited for people to provide a serious answer to this and I'm still waiting for an answer.

vidanay 8y ago

What happens when blockchain "databases" grow to multiple terrabytes or petabytes? This presents a huge barrier to spinning up a new validation (mining) node. Are there plans for sharding blockchains?

azamatms 8y ago
Bitcoin for example (and many others), will prune old blocks that are no longer required to make transactions on the network. If a block has all unspent inputs used up, the block will be pruned
- vidanay 8y ago
  That is a logical solution for Bitcoin. Doesn't Etherium track transactions back to the beginning of time though? That sounds like a Shlemiel The Painter problem.
  - azamatms 8y ago
    There's already full-node implementations that address state tree pruning: https://wiki.parity.io/Getting-Synced#database-pruning https://wiki.parity.io/Getting-Synced#database-pruning
  - vidanay 8y ago
    @azamatms Thanks!
zeroxfe 8y ago
Yes, there are (and some that already do), but doing it correctly is actually pretty complicated. Checkout Ethereum's sharding docs: https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs
- vidanay 8y ago
  Wow, that's some light reading for later!

equalarrow 8y ago

Here we go again.. First issue with the post: "Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity." Let's see, there's this thing called _cash_ and you don't need an id to buy drugs with it as well. Weapons can be purchased easily with it. Hits can be put out on people with it. Basically, anything bad in the world anyone would want to do that requires a payment, can be done with cash. The biggest 'offender' in this - the US dollar. Next: "Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!" Bullshit - in regard to backing up. Of course it doesn't need to be 'backed up'. It exists in its entirety across the globe, replicated on many thousands of machines, in many different countries. Hmmm, sounds like 'big replication' problem solved. (Marc Andreessen likes it anyway: https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/ https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/) The fact is, it is amazing because it's been running like this for over a decade now with NO HACKS, no data breaches, no hiding of anything based on this scandal or the next. No one company owns it. No one government owns it. And it's worth billions of dollars (meh). It does sound amazing to me. "Blockchain should make your system more trustworthy, but it does the opposite. Blockchain pushes the burden of trust onto individuals adding transactions to the blockchain. This is how all distributed systems work. The burden of trust goes from a central entity to all participants. And this is the inherent problem with blockchain." Snooze, bullshit... It is a FACT nowadays that the centralization of the internet has been bad for it. Even the inventor of it has come out against it. Putting trust in a third party is never a good idea in my mind. Strong encryption exists and it empowers the individual to USE IT. When I make a bitcoin transaction, I sign that transaction as valid. Me. I don't need a bank or a government or any other third party to make this happen. This is lost on many people, but having the freedom to transact securely and encrypt YOUR data is about as important of a concept as there can be nowadays. There are many government and corporate entities that do not want you to have this capability (I'm looking at you 'Senator' Feinstein..). You may have to trust Apple to provide 'secure' environments to run your/others apps, but they are not working in your interests and will change course as soon as it suits their profits. Anyway, this is a stupid article, to be blunt. It's from someone who is rallying against the marketing of blockchain and instead of taking on those messages/issues/marketing directly, he falls into the same trap as the rest of the naysayers. If you talk to a _real_ blockchain/crypto developer/advocate, they will probably tell you this: "if you want to make a immutable, open, distributed transactional database that isn't blindingly fast, then using a blockchain that has cryptographically signed transactions might be a good idea.". Ethereum has taken this a step further with smart contracts, which, have more or less worked. But NO ONE I know or talk to on a day to day is saying use a blockchain for your app database needs. And anyone who does, does not know what they are talking about and should probably be fired from any development position they hold. What is happening right now in this space is the smart people have their heads down and are cranking on the next generation of tech that everyone will be using in 5-10 years. The smart investors see this as well and are all positioning themselves as we speak. I personally stopped working on _legacy_ tech last year and am 100% exclusive on crypto and blockchain products. I have already seen this movie before twice: the first episode was called the web, the second was called mobile. So, hate if you will but it won't change anything. The early adopter wave is at the end and we'll see more mass adoption in the coming years. Good luck! TLDR; stupid article, known inaccuracies, known typical trolling content. Move along..

jetzzz 8y ago

Ability to create tokens and make money out of it has created a lot of unnecessary hype. Blockchain has its use-cases, but not as many as some want it to have.

supermatt 8y ago

Whilst I agree with the general statement of this article, it seems the author doesnt understand that there are different kinds of "blockchain" than that used by bitcoin

chaosmail 8y ago

I think Blockchain technology as distributed immutable ledger is a very nice data structure for a lot of real world use cases (supply chain, market place, contracts,..). Sure it's also a huge hype thanks to crypto currencies, icos, etc. but the technology fulfills a need. However, I see more advantages in using private quorums leveraging proof of authority instead of public networks of untrusted nodes. I understand that not everyone might be ok with this tradeoff.

icebraining 8y ago
Distributed immutable logs of data existed long before the Blockchain (as someone pointed out, Git is a good example - just sign your commits). The innovation of the Blockchain was specifically the combination of that with the POW, which enabled coordination between untrusted nodes without falling prey to Sybil attacks. A private blockchain is just giving another name to a preexisting model. It's like saying "I use a pedelec, but I see more advantages in removing the motor and battery".

swift532 8y ago

From what I see in discussions about blockchain hype, blockchain is conflated with cryptocurrency by largely ignorant opinions on the Internet. I concede this: It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins that boast to be faster than Bitcoin). However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions. Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it 50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One Day™). However, having an open, open source global payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.

drngdds 8y ago
>cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most currency, then it's not really democratic.
- swift532 8y ago
  In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people (because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having that ability, can: - disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in bad faith - ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)
  - adamrezich 8y ago
    I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as it currently exists working in practice in human society.

chaostheory 8y ago

> Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing! Did he get this wrong? Don't blockchain ledgers always get backed up? Isn't the difference being that instead of just backing up to one place and at one specific time like most database setups, blockchain data is backed up with everyone all the time with every transaction? - which is why it can take hours to just updated one record

swift532 8y ago
Yes, you are correct. And also, all of those are useful features (except time taken to update, which is a side-effect of consensus/propagation costs).

spatley 8y ago

“allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of showing their identity.” Except for the fact that it is kept in a public ledger for eternity.

kirykl 8y ago

It’s easier to just nod yes and take money from your management who’s decided they need a blockchain, than spend time burning bridges in explaining why they don’t

mooneater 8y ago
That is sad, life is too short for this.

manishsharan 8y ago

I wish all universities would put student transcripts on a public blockchain, while addressing privacy concerns.

icebraining 8y ago
Why?
- manishsharan 8y ago
  It would make it possible to trust the academic credentials presented by foreign applicants. Currently this process is very cumbersome. Some unversities require applicants to submit notarized transcripts to thirdparty for verification. The process is long and painful. And if the applicant wants to apply in multiple Universities, then they have to get multiple notarized copies of their transcripts. And if they want to apply for post grad , they have to repeat the process for getting notarized transcripts.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Seems like you'd be better off by a PDF digitally signed by the university (with the public key hosted on their website, for verification). I just saved with a few thousand dollars. Where should I send the bill? :D

decentralised 8y ago

As a professional blockchain developer and someone who believes and works towards decentralisation and the economic emancipation of the under-represented, I find this type of article very sad. The author probably buys his drugs in a store like most people do, but he fixates on the payment technology that can allow other to buy them semi-anonymously and securely in the privacy of their own homes, while ignoring TCP/IP or PHP or whatever browser that needs to be used in the same transaction. This seems like an agenda but experience has thought me that I shouldn't attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. On the topic of what a blockchain is and what it enables, Thomas is ignorant but also incredibly unaware of his own privilege. I need a public, decentralised blockchain, smart-contracts and cryptoeconomics to bootstrap digital economies that don't rely on advertising or selling user's data. I also need them to help bring electric power, clean water and food to people that don't buy drugs online with the tokens I create. You know why? Because they are too busy trying to survive failed nation-states. Thomas, if you read this, please consider that your opinion is your own and you do have the right to express it anyway you want but for now the only thing you've accomplished is that I will stop using and advising Solarwinds to my customers.

icebraining 8y ago
Sounds like another example of the politician's fallacy. Yes, people need those thing, but one can recognize that while still disagreeing that the blockchain will in any significant way help with that. And that kind of argument - "either you're with me or you hate poor people in failed nation-states!" - is just emotional manipulation.
- decentralised 8y ago
  I might feel more emotional about this because I'm involved right? From my perspective, I'm not appealing to your feelings, I'm telling you that buying drugs is a very small portion of what makes cryptocurrencies relevant and blockchain based commerce a necessity. I was just at a talk where Steward Brand, a man known for the Whole Earth Catalog, the Hackers Conferences, the Mother of all Demos as well as the Trips festival (early SF psy-scene) was showing incredible vitality and enthusiasm about what the Ethereum community is accomplishing right now. Before that, there was this fantastic presentation by Glen Weyl from Radical Markets fame who has a vision for empowering under-privileged and under-represented that relies on blockchain. His work with Vitalik Buterin and others (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656) on Liberal Radicalism is a step forward towards funding of commons and allowing communities to self-organise. At no point during the last 5 days did I hear one person at this conference mention buying drugs with cryptos.

Nuzzerino 8y ago

This article is a clever strawman. Their technical definition of blockchain is accurate, but there is one detail missing which changes everything. Most "blockchain solutions" use smart contracts, which make heavy use of data validation. So I'd review that checklist again, but this time without the need for all parties to trust each other. Yeah, that's a pretty significant difference. It's easy to find valid arguments to support the idea that blockchains are overhyped. But I get the impression that the author's understanding of the subject is outdated. Did the author even bother to do any research on why there was a bubble? It would not have taken more than minutes to stumble across the definition of a smart contract. As they say in cryptoland, this is just FUD.

snambi 8y ago

Seems like a database marketing guy attacking its competitor. LOL