3 ms·

Right, authority-less blockchain is only intrinsically trustworthy for purely digital goods. If you want to track software licenses it might work (although 99%

by simias 6y ago

Right, authority-less blockchain is only intrinsically trustworthy for purely digital goods. If you want to track software licenses it might work (although 99% of the time a centralized solution will be simpler and vastly more efficient). And this immutability can arguably be a detriment. Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. The whole idea that you could import all the rules, laws and regulations of the real world into a computer program without any bug or unforeseen issue is probably one of the most ridiculous aspect of that whole blockchain industry. Especially since we already have a fairly consequential list of "smart contracts" that have been exploited in the wild despite being fairly basic compared to IRL regulations. "Oh you lost your house because somebody found a weird edge case between two smart contracts that let them buy it for $1? Ah man, that sucks, but then THE CODE IS LAW so... Tough luck. Maybe try buying DOGE coins? I hear it's gonna moon soon. They used rocket emojis, so you know it's serious."

mason55 6y ago
> Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. Yes, many times things like T+2 settlements on trades or taking three days for a transfer to fully clear are a feature, not a bug. You start with Bitcoin being like cash, where once it's gone it's gone, unless a court can find the person and get it back. Then you don't want grandma to get scammed, so you build bank-like entities on top of the blockchain who re-create the three day window for transfers. In theory you could have different entities that have different settlement times as a tradeoff, but the modern system could do that now. The reason they don't is you need both parties to have the same rules or else your bank will get bogged down trying to figure out the rules of every other bank. Maybe you add an instant, non-revocable transfer like a SWIFT equivalent to go along with your 3-day ACH equivalent and, congrats, you've recreated the modern banking system.
spiderxxxx 6y ago
Immutability of past transactions is just an artifact of an append-only database. Blockchain gives you nothing that an append-only database couldn't provide for that guarantee. Combine that with some server sharding, and there's not really a point to having blockchain do anything at all. The wholly designed inefficiency of "mining coins" is not necessary to having a distributed ledger.
- crmd 6y ago
  You should have heard IBM's blockchain executive (I forget his name) giving his pitch at an investor conference in Palo Alto back in 2017. Standing ovation after an amazing presentation about disrupting banking, healthcare, and global logistics. I swear this industry runs on bullshit.

by simias 6y ago

mason55 6y ago

> Laws and rules are messy and can be exploited, not having any recourse if you get scammed is not necessarily a huge pro. Yes, many times things like T+2 settlements on trades or taking three days for a transfer to fully clear are a feature, not a bug. You start with Bitcoin being like cash, where once it's gone it's gone, unless a court can find the person and get it back. Then you don't want grandma to get scammed, so you build bank-like entities on top of the blockchain who re-create the three day window for transfers. In theory you could have different entities that have different settlement times as a tradeoff, but the modern system could do that now. The reason they don't is you need both parties to have the same rules or else your bank will get bogged down trying to figure out the rules of every other bank. Maybe you add an instant, non-revocable transfer like a SWIFT equivalent to go along with your 3-day ACH equivalent and, congrats, you've recreated the modern banking system.

spiderxxxx 6y ago

Immutability of past transactions is just an artifact of an append-only database. Blockchain gives you nothing that an append-only database couldn't provide for that guarantee. Combine that with some server sharding, and there's not really a point to having blockchain do anything at all. The wholly designed inefficiency of "mining coins" is not necessary to having a distributed ledger.

crmd 6y ago
You should have heard IBM's blockchain executive (I forget his name) giving his pitch at an investor conference in Palo Alto back in 2017. Standing ovation after an amazing presentation about disrupting banking, healthcare, and global logistics. I swear this industry runs on bullshit.