3 ms·

That's not the problem that blockchain is designed to solve. It is, however, the problem that purveyors of centralized blockchains would like you think it solve

That's not the problem that blockchain is designed to solve. It is, however, the problem that purveyors of centralized blockchains would like you think it solves. The problem that blockchains solve is centralization. In other words - google cloud computing. To revisit your example: let's say you are ordering 5 widgets. * A lookup on the Widget Market Blockchain tells you that vendor X has completed a large number of 5-star transactions, with a verified number of clients that have all sufficient 5 star transactions with the rest of the network to be considered genuine accounts, while vendor Y has a history of shipments that are reported as not arriving. You can examine each transaction, though automated verification tools are already in place to make cheating unprofitable. You can examine the code of those tools, along with the blockchain contracts themselves, should you so choose. Or: * Amazon's Widget product page shows the Amazon Choice item (neither the cheapest, nor most appropriate product), followed by a list of sponsored products. Many of the reviews are clearly fake, or appear to refer to a different product, with no way to verify that an actual transaction between genuine widget trading parties took place.

blairanderson 7y ago
Amazon does show "verified purchase" but who's to say what a genuine account is?
- bena 7y ago
  Yes, the only thing blockchain really does is relieve you of the responsibility of trusting the record holder.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  The accounts' transaction histories, and the transaction histories of their transactants is all that anyone - even Amazon - has to go on - in both toy scenarios. The difference here is the transparency, and the resulting web of trust that can emerge. You may not have done business with company X, but you can observe that many users who successully transacted with companies Y, Z and W (with whom you have also successfully transacted) have all left good purchase reviews for company X.
bena 7y ago
That's a rather contrived example and completely fictional. How do you get that verified number of clients that "have all sufficient 5 star transactions with the rest of the network"? What if a 5 star company doesn't want to treat with a no-star client? How does a no-star client become a 5 star client? Do no-star clients just have to hope and pray with no/low-star vendors? Or hope a 5 star vendor takes pity on them? Also, what's the difference between a "5 star transaction" and a "4 star" one? Why not just "Successful" and "Unsuccessful"? You just make the claim that "the automated verification tools are already in place to make cheating unprofitable." That's a huge leap already. I don't grant you the assumption that they would exist. How do we even get there? It's basically: "Assume a perfect system. See, it's perfect!"
- WalterSear 7y ago
  Assume an auditable, anonymized transaction system. See, now all your objections are merely implementation details! In the previous toy example, I was refering to 'already implemented' in the fictional Widget Market transaction system - things that could feasibly be created, rather than existing tools, iow. There are, fwiw, thriving anonymous reputation systems in the real world, though none directly implementing blockchains, afaik. The Dark Web is full of them
tuesdayrain 7y ago
I think the ability for anyone to audit smart contracts hosted on blockchains is underrated by a lot of skeptics. Gambling, for example, is a multi-billion dollar industry, and prior to Ethereum there was no way to gamble online and verify that you're playing with honest odds.
- WalterSear 7y ago
  IMHO, it's all there is. There's going to be a huge Poof when all the blockchain middlemen come to jesus, and accept that a blockchain's value is in not having a middle.
  - derefr 7y ago
    Why do you think they would ever accept that? That's like saying that snake-oil salesmen will one day "accept" that their products do nothing, and so quit selling them. Snake-oil salesmen knew what they were peddling the start; the (lack of) true efficacy of the product was never in question. That fact was just entirely irrelevant to them.

blairanderson 7y ago

Amazon does show "verified purchase" but who's to say what a genuine account is?

bena 7y ago
Yes, the only thing blockchain really does is relieve you of the responsibility of trusting the record holder.
WalterSear 7y ago
The accounts' transaction histories, and the transaction histories of their transactants is all that anyone - even Amazon - has to go on - in both toy scenarios. The difference here is the transparency, and the resulting web of trust that can emerge. You may not have done business with company X, but you can observe that many users who successully transacted with companies Y, Z and W (with whom you have also successfully transacted) have all left good purchase reviews for company X.

bena 7y ago

That's a rather contrived example and completely fictional. How do you get that verified number of clients that "have all sufficient 5 star transactions with the rest of the network"? What if a 5 star company doesn't want to treat with a no-star client? How does a no-star client become a 5 star client? Do no-star clients just have to hope and pray with no/low-star vendors? Or hope a 5 star vendor takes pity on them? Also, what's the difference between a "5 star transaction" and a "4 star" one? Why not just "Successful" and "Unsuccessful"? You just make the claim that "the automated verification tools are already in place to make cheating unprofitable." That's a huge leap already. I don't grant you the assumption that they would exist. How do we even get there? It's basically: "Assume a perfect system. See, it's perfect!"

WalterSear 7y ago
Assume an auditable, anonymized transaction system. See, now all your objections are merely implementation details! In the previous toy example, I was refering to 'already implemented' in the fictional Widget Market transaction system - things that could feasibly be created, rather than existing tools, iow. There are, fwiw, thriving anonymous reputation systems in the real world, though none directly implementing blockchains, afaik. The Dark Web is full of them

tuesdayrain 7y ago

I think the ability for anyone to audit smart contracts hosted on blockchains is underrated by a lot of skeptics. Gambling, for example, is a multi-billion dollar industry, and prior to Ethereum there was no way to gamble online and verify that you're playing with honest odds.

WalterSear 7y ago
IMHO, it's all there is. There's going to be a huge Poof when all the blockchain middlemen come to jesus, and accept that a blockchain's value is in not having a middle.
- derefr 7y ago
  Why do you think they would ever accept that? That's like saying that snake-oil salesmen will one day "accept" that their products do nothing, and so quit selling them. Snake-oil salesmen knew what they were peddling the start; the (lack of) true efficacy of the product was never in question. That fact was just entirely irrelevant to them.