4 ms·

Can you point to a legitimate problem that “blockchain” can solve, which can’t be solved with existing tools? I think every smart person working on any kind of

Can you point to a legitimate problem that “blockchain” can solve, which can’t be solved with existing tools? I think every smart person working on any kind of blockchain-related tech is seriously wasting their talent and life.

mirekrusin 6y ago
System that can't be shut down by governments?
- louwrentius 6y ago
  You mean that government that just shuts down internet, making your 'system' totally useless? Yes, right! You can't fix societal problems with tech.
  - dgellow 6y ago
    Something to consider: shutting down the internet is very expensive for a government and is likely to results in social unrest and have a lot of other negative side effects.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      For first-world countries yes, but we see second and third world countries do it all the time.
      - dgellow 6y ago
        And that damages their reputation, creates social unrest, makes it difficult to do business from there, etc. I just want to say that yes, you can shut down the internet but that's already a quite high bar if that's the only way a government can stop a system.
        robjan 6y ago
        It seems that the people who need it the most are least likely to gain utility from it.
  - mirekrusin 6y ago
    Yes you can, access to free information and finance should be a human right. Just like cash can be used by anyone, so electronic cash should be.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      Cryptocurrencies and blockchain were never really about human rights. It's all about making a quick buck. If that's at the expense of other people or our environment, who gives a fuck right?
      - mirekrusin 6y ago
        Those crypto tools came from techno-anarchist circles, heavily based on academia research - not much of a quick buck there, more passion for privacy and aversion to government and any form of control. Speculators are great for funding and where is money you'll see scammers quickly as well.
loceng 6y ago
There may be existing tools that are foolproof that can provide an immutable ledger, I'm unsure if that's fully possible otherwise, however having all transactions and changes to said system being public would prevent things like nations printing money without reporting it accurately - helping to make sure everyone's playing a fair game; using such a ledger would have to be voluntary, with nations who are aligned with similar values. Edit to add: This may in fact be the only important use case for blockchain, where nations under different groups of democratic-based control, agree to use the same blockchain - so they can all know no one else is cheating the system. The transparency could allow public, peer analysis of transactions as well - and who knows what insights or protections-security could come from having that crowdsourced witnessing occurring; perhaps distributing the mining amongst the citizens of each nation as well, if deemed necessary as a safeguard. Serendipitously, this was just posted to HN: "Data Immutability, Verifiability and Integrity Without the Blockchain Overhead" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26221324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26221324
- louwrentius 6y ago
  You are trying to solve a problem that is a feature. Printing money is a feature to keep our societies afloat during dark times. It is one of the tools to keep a currency stable. Not to say that there aren't serious problems in the fin-tech world, but immutable ledgers and rigid currencies aren't going to solve those. The key problem - and your post is yet another example - is that you can't replace trust with an immutable ledger. https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_good_reaso.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_g... The real problem - in my view - is that people don't understand the foundations of a society anymore, how to live together.
  - loceng 6y ago
    You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. "... is that you can't replace trust with an immutable ledger." "The real problem - in my view - is that people don't understand the foundations of a society anymore, how to live together." I agree with you 100%. Also, I never said we should prevent printing money with blockchain - the purpose and value is so that if a nation does print money, they're open and honest about it. It would be their own democratic decision to do so, likewise in the blockchain system I envision - it would be that same democratic process, decision making, that they would want to join such a managed system that other trusted-democratic nations are part of - where they believe in the transparency of it all. And I never even alluded to replacing trust with an immutable ledger, just that an immutable ledger becomes a witness that each nation would decide to be witnessed by by their peers. All of my projects are health-wellness focused, in part to help people develop their self-awareness, to gain and maintain their health, and in part that is healing through community - building real community.
ccortes 6y ago
> Can you point to a legitimate problem that “blockchain” can solve, which can’t be solved with existing tools? I will never understand this. The vast majority of problems have more than one solution, most of the time is just about solving something in a (much) better way. If the bar for something to exist is "solve a problem that can't be solved with existing tools" then 99% of startups wouldn't exist.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  I think you misinterpret my statement. Just as you have just a finite set of notes on a piano, you can create infinite music. And even if IT has a finite set of regular tools like SQL databases, programming languages and protocols, it's the thing you create with that, what counts. Blockchain is a tool that does nothing better than existing tools. Blockchain is a solution to a problem nobody has.
  - ccortes 6y ago
    I don't know if you'd count it as a blockchain solution but I constantly use crypto to send money to my family and it's the best solution that I've found. And yes, I now about transferwise, paypal, swift, etc. And using crypto is faster and cheaper.
    - imtringued 6y ago
      What are the tax implications for the receiving side?
    - Karunamon 6y ago
      I call maximum shenanigans on "cheaper" unless you're sending large amounts of money. Bitcoin: ~$25 Ethereum (and all tokens): ~$17 For comparison, to burn that much in fees on Paypal (2.5% + 30c), I'd need to send around 10K. Crypto is currently pointless for anything other than big transactions, and the unpredictability of the transaction fees, let alone the coin's value, is a big problem.
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Can you point to a legitimate problem that "whatsapp" solved that could not be solved with existing tools? Between SMS, MMS, 'normal' calls and Skype, whatsapp added nothing technically new to the world.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  Whatsapp was cross platform and free.
  - ClumsyPilot 6y ago
    Skype was cross-platform and free too. Also, we are talking technology, their pricing strategy is a different problem.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      No, you have to take in the context and timeframe. Skype was not a messaging platform that regular users used on their Phone. iPhone and Android each were their own bubble and required paid expensive SMS messages to talk to each other. Whatsapp was at least very populair in The Netherlands for this reason alone. Pricing is important because that proves why it was useful to people. Also: ease of use, based on how Whatsapp works. We are not talking just technologies but technologies in a context.
- sopp 6y ago
  Whatsapp is an app not a technology - the protocols allowibg users to communicate through whatsapp are the real innovation there

mirekrusin 6y ago

System that can't be shut down by governments?

louwrentius 6y ago
You mean that government that just shuts down internet, making your 'system' totally useless? Yes, right! You can't fix societal problems with tech.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Something to consider: shutting down the internet is very expensive for a government and is likely to results in social unrest and have a lot of other negative side effects.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    For first-world countries yes, but we see second and third world countries do it all the time.
    - dgellow 6y ago
      And that damages their reputation, creates social unrest, makes it difficult to do business from there, etc. I just want to say that yes, you can shut down the internet but that's already a quite high bar if that's the only way a government can stop a system.
      - robjan 6y ago
        It seems that the people who need it the most are least likely to gain utility from it.
- mirekrusin 6y ago
  Yes you can, access to free information and finance should be a human right. Just like cash can be used by anyone, so electronic cash should be.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    Cryptocurrencies and blockchain were never really about human rights. It's all about making a quick buck. If that's at the expense of other people or our environment, who gives a fuck right?
    - mirekrusin 6y ago
      Those crypto tools came from techno-anarchist circles, heavily based on academia research - not much of a quick buck there, more passion for privacy and aversion to government and any form of control. Speculators are great for funding and where is money you'll see scammers quickly as well.

loceng 6y ago

There may be existing tools that are foolproof that can provide an immutable ledger, I'm unsure if that's fully possible otherwise, however having all transactions and changes to said system being public would prevent things like nations printing money without reporting it accurately - helping to make sure everyone's playing a fair game; using such a ledger would have to be voluntary, with nations who are aligned with similar values. Edit to add: This may in fact be the only important use case for blockchain, where nations under different groups of democratic-based control, agree to use the same blockchain - so they can all know no one else is cheating the system. The transparency could allow public, peer analysis of transactions as well - and who knows what insights or protections-security could come from having that crowdsourced witnessing occurring; perhaps distributing the mining amongst the citizens of each nation as well, if deemed necessary as a safeguard. Serendipitously, this was just posted to HN: "Data Immutability, Verifiability and Integrity Without the Blockchain Overhead" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26221324 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26221324

louwrentius 6y ago
You are trying to solve a problem that is a feature. Printing money is a feature to keep our societies afloat during dark times. It is one of the tools to keep a currency stable. Not to say that there aren't serious problems in the fin-tech world, but immutable ledgers and rigid currencies aren't going to solve those. The key problem - and your post is yet another example - is that you can't replace trust with an immutable ledger. https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_good_reaso.html https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_g... The real problem - in my view - is that people don't understand the foundations of a society anymore, how to live together.
- loceng 6y ago
  You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. "... is that you can't replace trust with an immutable ledger." "The real problem - in my view - is that people don't understand the foundations of a society anymore, how to live together." I agree with you 100%. Also, I never said we should prevent printing money with blockchain - the purpose and value is so that if a nation does print money, they're open and honest about it. It would be their own democratic decision to do so, likewise in the blockchain system I envision - it would be that same democratic process, decision making, that they would want to join such a managed system that other trusted-democratic nations are part of - where they believe in the transparency of it all. And I never even alluded to replacing trust with an immutable ledger, just that an immutable ledger becomes a witness that each nation would decide to be witnessed by by their peers. All of my projects are health-wellness focused, in part to help people develop their self-awareness, to gain and maintain their health, and in part that is healing through community - building real community.

ccortes 6y ago

> Can you point to a legitimate problem that “blockchain” can solve, which can’t be solved with existing tools? I will never understand this. The vast majority of problems have more than one solution, most of the time is just about solving something in a (much) better way. If the bar for something to exist is "solve a problem that can't be solved with existing tools" then 99% of startups wouldn't exist.

louwrentius 6y ago
I think you misinterpret my statement. Just as you have just a finite set of notes on a piano, you can create infinite music. And even if IT has a finite set of regular tools like SQL databases, programming languages and protocols, it's the thing you create with that, what counts. Blockchain is a tool that does nothing better than existing tools. Blockchain is a solution to a problem nobody has.
- ccortes 6y ago
  I don't know if you'd count it as a blockchain solution but I constantly use crypto to send money to my family and it's the best solution that I've found. And yes, I now about transferwise, paypal, swift, etc. And using crypto is faster and cheaper.
  - imtringued 6y ago
    What are the tax implications for the receiving side?
  - Karunamon 6y ago
    I call maximum shenanigans on "cheaper" unless you're sending large amounts of money. Bitcoin: ~$25 Ethereum (and all tokens): ~$17 For comparison, to burn that much in fees on Paypal (2.5% + 30c), I'd need to send around 10K. Crypto is currently pointless for anything other than big transactions, and the unpredictability of the transaction fees, let alone the coin's value, is a big problem.

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Can you point to a legitimate problem that "whatsapp" solved that could not be solved with existing tools? Between SMS, MMS, 'normal' calls and Skype, whatsapp added nothing technically new to the world.

louwrentius 6y ago
Whatsapp was cross platform and free.
- ClumsyPilot 6y ago
  Skype was cross-platform and free too. Also, we are talking technology, their pricing strategy is a different problem.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    No, you have to take in the context and timeframe. Skype was not a messaging platform that regular users used on their Phone. iPhone and Android each were their own bubble and required paid expensive SMS messages to talk to each other. Whatsapp was at least very populair in The Netherlands for this reason alone. Pricing is important because that proves why it was useful to people. Also: ease of use, based on how Whatsapp works. We are not talking just technologies but technologies in a context.
sopp 6y ago
Whatsapp is an app not a technology - the protocols allowibg users to communicate through whatsapp are the real innovation there