6 ms·

This article is trash -- just look at these assertions: >The overwhelming consensus among programmers and technologists is that blockchain is completely useles

by s_dev 6y ago

This article is trash -- just look at these assertions: >The overwhelming consensus among programmers and technologists is that blockchain is completely useless technology for anything but speculative digital gambling on tokens. Many Bitcoin skeptics are advocates of blockchain -- so I don't see a consensus here. >Ok, so what do we even mean when we say “blockchain”. The answer is really that nobody knows, it’s not a term that has any precise definition and it really depends on who you talk to and the context. Blockchain is useful and afaik does have a working definition -- it solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example.

ForHackernews 6y ago
> Blockchain is useful and afaik does have a working definition Speaking of unsupported assertions...
blockyhead 6y ago
He really did write "The answer is nobody knows"? Blockchains are not that hard to understand. So he plainly admits he doesn't know what he is talking about?
- ForHackernews 6y ago
  What's hard to understand about a really slow append-only database where you have to set a barrel of crude oil on fire in order to make a commit? (edit: yes yes, 'proof of stake' blah blah)
  - blockyhead 6y ago
    Why bother explaining it to you? I recommend you try to work in other areas.
  - noxer 6y ago
    DLTs (blockchains) solve the double spending problem in a decentral (trustless) way. Thats "the definition" and what separates it from other similar tech like git, a synced databases or a write-only database. PoW/PoS are just rather stupid ways to implement this its not needed at all. Lookup federated byzantine agreement (FBA) for DLT systems without it.
    - blockyhead 6y ago
      You know, if you could come up with a better way to implement it, you could become a billionaire. But maybe you already are, everything is possible on HN.
      - noxer 6y ago
        Go to XRPL.org its literally that and it exists since like 2013, It whole goal back then was to make a better bitcoin. Plenty other projects have adapted the concept or even forked the code. The core team behind this back when it was named opencoin are without a doubt millionaires now and some even billionaires. So you are right but it way way to late now. Not to says that there could not be a even better solutions. But its already several thousand times better if you compare raw metrics like speed/TPS/energy usage etc. an even better solution would likely not make that much of a difference again.
        blockyhead 6y ago
        Ripple has issues, iirc. It is not "the" solution yet.
        noxer 6y ago
        Ripple is a company. The XRPL is fully functional since many years.
rcxdude 6y ago
> solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example. Not really. At least, that's not the new part in cryptocurrencies. The knowledge of how to have a verifiable list of transactions which could not be tampered with existed long before bitcoin: the main challenge was to only have one which everyone could agree on just using the same set of rules without having to trust everyone follows the rules or the intent behind them (if you have a single you can trust or even just a set of parties in which you can trust the majority then it's pretty easy). And that's far more to do with designing an incentive structure which works to achieve that then it is about any fundamental cryptography.
- s_dev 6y ago
  Crypto currencies aren't necessary for blockchain as a technology to be useful as in the bit rot example. However crypto currencies cannot exist without the blockchain.
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    I suspect what you're calling a blockchain is actually a merkle tree. The blockchain is a merkle tree structure shared via p2p communication over a protocol designed to prevent double spending. Merkle trees were invented in 1979. If companies looking to prevent data tampering didn't make use of them until they got rebranded as "blockchain" then those companies are just bad at what they do.
    - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
      > The blockchain is a merkle tree structure shared via p2p communication over a protocol designed to prevent double spending. I'd say "The blockchain is a Merkle tree structure with a consensus algorithm which selects a canonical path to a leaf node at any given time." I don't think preventing double spending is a meaningful concept for non-cryptocurrency blockchains, since those have nothing to spend. Whether we accept that such things are blockchains determines whether this distinction makes any sense. Though, if all blockchains are cryptocurrencies then there's not really any need to separate the two terms.
beaconstudios 6y ago
> it solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example. OK, I'll bite - how does blockchain technology help prevent bit rot in a way that can't be helped more efficiently by a simpler technology?
davewritescode 6y ago
I think blockchain is a great example of interesting tech with very few real applications outside of crypto currency. Others have pointed out that there's many cheaper ways to prevent bit rot. Almost anything you can do with a blockchain can be accomplished with a centralized ledger. Bitcoin is a great example of interesting tech that overcomplicates something everyone understands to fix problems most people don't have. Should we ever find a major vulnerability in a common implementation, it could be game over.
rojeee 6y ago
I've worked in blockchain for 8 years across the crypto and enterprise space and I can tell you with utter certainty that it is stupid. And I'm stupid too for not seeing it earlier.
- rojeee 6y ago
  Just to provide slightly more info: For crypto (read blockchain with PoW, PoS), other than censorship resistance - which most people don't actually care about because they are lucky enough not to need it - it doesn't really offer anything useful. Most crypto projects are Rube Goldberg machines whereby the operators of these companies are re-hashing all the same things our we've done with money before. Of course they are doing well at the moment because it's morphed into a get rich quick scheme. If there was no easy money to be made there would be little interest in it, just like there was back in 2010 when I started looking at Bitcoin. Enterprise blockchain struggles because there's no actual need for blockchain elements like chains of provenance and smart contracts if the participants are fully identified and already have business relationships. "Blockchain" is a direct substitute for trusted third parties and good legal agreements and should only ever be used in circumstances where all other options are exhausted because the technology comes with so many bad trade-offs. Doesn't scale, very complicated, difficult to manage upgrades and versions, customers find it hard to understand, etc...
noxer 6y ago
Data storage is in fact not a property of a blockchain. There is nothing that prevents data in a blockchain to be lost other than the fact that many people store it, which is not guaranteed at all. DLTs (blockchains) solve the double spending problem in a decentral (trustless) way. Thats "the definition" and what separates it from other similar tech like git or synced databases.
TeMPOraL 6y ago
> it solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example That's the first time I've seen "blockchain" and "bitrot" in the same sentence. And I fail to see the connection, unless you reduce "blockchain" to mean "copying data over and over", at which point there are many other, better solutions.

by s_dev 6y ago

ForHackernews 6y ago

> Blockchain is useful and afaik does have a working definition Speaking of unsupported assertions...

blockyhead 6y ago

He really did write "The answer is nobody knows"? Blockchains are not that hard to understand. So he plainly admits he doesn't know what he is talking about?

ForHackernews 6y ago
What's hard to understand about a really slow append-only database where you have to set a barrel of crude oil on fire in order to make a commit? (edit: yes yes, 'proof of stake' blah blah)
- blockyhead 6y ago
  Why bother explaining it to you? I recommend you try to work in other areas.
- noxer 6y ago
  DLTs (blockchains) solve the double spending problem in a decentral (trustless) way. Thats "the definition" and what separates it from other similar tech like git, a synced databases or a write-only database. PoW/PoS are just rather stupid ways to implement this its not needed at all. Lookup federated byzantine agreement (FBA) for DLT systems without it.
  - blockyhead 6y ago
    You know, if you could come up with a better way to implement it, you could become a billionaire. But maybe you already are, everything is possible on HN.
    - noxer 6y ago
      Go to XRPL.org its literally that and it exists since like 2013, It whole goal back then was to make a better bitcoin. Plenty other projects have adapted the concept or even forked the code. The core team behind this back when it was named opencoin are without a doubt millionaires now and some even billionaires. So you are right but it way way to late now. Not to says that there could not be a even better solutions. But its already several thousand times better if you compare raw metrics like speed/TPS/energy usage etc. an even better solution would likely not make that much of a difference again.
      - blockyhead 6y ago
        Ripple has issues, iirc. It is not "the" solution yet.
        noxer 6y ago
        Ripple is a company. The XRPL is fully functional since many years.

rcxdude 6y ago

> solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example. Not really. At least, that's not the new part in cryptocurrencies. The knowledge of how to have a verifiable list of transactions which could not be tampered with existed long before bitcoin: the main challenge was to only have one which everyone could agree on just using the same set of rules without having to trust everyone follows the rules or the intent behind them (if you have a single you can trust or even just a set of parties in which you can trust the majority then it's pretty easy). And that's far more to do with designing an incentive structure which works to achieve that then it is about any fundamental cryptography.

s_dev 6y ago
Crypto currencies aren't necessary for blockchain as a technology to be useful as in the bit rot example. However crypto currencies cannot exist without the blockchain.
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  I suspect what you're calling a blockchain is actually a merkle tree. The blockchain is a merkle tree structure shared via p2p communication over a protocol designed to prevent double spending. Merkle trees were invented in 1979. If companies looking to prevent data tampering didn't make use of them until they got rebranded as "blockchain" then those companies are just bad at what they do.
  - SAI_Peregrinus 6y ago
    > The blockchain is a merkle tree structure shared via p2p communication over a protocol designed to prevent double spending. I'd say "The blockchain is a Merkle tree structure with a consensus algorithm which selects a canonical path to a leaf node at any given time." I don't think preventing double spending is a meaningful concept for non-cryptocurrency blockchains, since those have nothing to spend. Whether we accept that such things are blockchains determines whether this distinction makes any sense. Though, if all blockchains are cryptocurrencies then there's not really any need to separate the two terms.

beaconstudios 6y ago

> it solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example. OK, I'll bite - how does blockchain technology help prevent bit rot in a way that can't be helped more efficiently by a simpler technology?

davewritescode 6y ago

I think blockchain is a great example of interesting tech with very few real applications outside of crypto currency. Others have pointed out that there's many cheaper ways to prevent bit rot. Almost anything you can do with a blockchain can be accomplished with a centralized ledger. Bitcoin is a great example of interesting tech that overcomplicates something everyone understands to fix problems most people don't have. Should we ever find a major vulnerability in a common implementation, it could be game over.

rojeee 6y ago

I've worked in blockchain for 8 years across the crypto and enterprise space and I can tell you with utter certainty that it is stupid. And I'm stupid too for not seeing it earlier.

rojeee 6y ago
Just to provide slightly more info: For crypto (read blockchain with PoW, PoS), other than censorship resistance - which most people don't actually care about because they are lucky enough not to need it - it doesn't really offer anything useful. Most crypto projects are Rube Goldberg machines whereby the operators of these companies are re-hashing all the same things our we've done with money before. Of course they are doing well at the moment because it's morphed into a get rich quick scheme. If there was no easy money to be made there would be little interest in it, just like there was back in 2010 when I started looking at Bitcoin. Enterprise blockchain struggles because there's no actual need for blockchain elements like chains of provenance and smart contracts if the participants are fully identified and already have business relationships. "Blockchain" is a direct substitute for trusted third parties and good legal agreements and should only ever be used in circumstances where all other options are exhausted because the technology comes with so many bad trade-offs. Doesn't scale, very complicated, difficult to manage upgrades and versions, customers find it hard to understand, etc...

noxer 6y ago

Data storage is in fact not a property of a blockchain. There is nothing that prevents data in a blockchain to be lost other than the fact that many people store it, which is not guaranteed at all. DLTs (blockchains) solve the double spending problem in a decentral (trustless) way. Thats "the definition" and what separates it from other similar tech like git or synced databases.

TeMPOraL 6y ago

> it solves a very real problem of how to prevent bitrot in the long term storage of data for example That's the first time I've seen "blockchain" and "bitrot" in the same sentence. And I fail to see the connection, unless you reduce "blockchain" to mean "copying data over and over", at which point there are many other, better solutions.