4 ms·

> there's not a single blockchain based solution that achieves better results than a classical solution The following > trustlessness, decentralization and pe

> there's not a single blockchain based solution that achieves better results than a classical solution The following > trustlessness, decentralization and permissionlessness Are better results. But I do admit, that they come at _performance_ trade-offs.

marcus_holmes 5y ago
but they don't achieve any of those, either. All of them rely on a centralised authority, as can be seen with the bitcoin & ethereum forks - if something goes bad, the people in control will step in and make it better. That means there are people in control. This is not trustless, decentralised or permissionless.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  There's degrees in everything. Permissionless--nobody can stop a transaction from taking place because of ideology. Decentralised--the miners and the software devs have to agree on something to make a hard change. This has happened so rarely as to be a non-issue. When it does happen, the currency forks and those that want to use it can do so as they please. BTC became LiteCoin, BCH, and BSV from hard protocol forks. Ethereum forked from Ethereum Classic. Hive forked from Steamit as Tron tried a hostile takeover. Trustless -- Here trustless really mean visibility. I can verify everything is correct in the chain myself. I don't have to believe there are gold bars in a vault somewhere, but to a degree it also means I can trust there's no central authority that may be ponzi-ing or ready to abuse the protocol.
  - marcus_holmes 5y ago
    Yeah, but you probably rely on a wallet provider, which messes with most of this. The wallet provider can absolutely block a transaction for ideological reasons, and requires you to trust it, and so on. You need to be pretty techy to verify a transaction in the chain yourself, or do any of the other things you talk about. A non-technical person can't do this. They have to trust other people. This really isn't different from trusting that there are gold bars in the vault. It's been what, 5 years ish, since this all blew up? In 5 years you can name 5 hard forks in the major currencies. That's not "rare".
    - reedjosh 5y ago
      > You probably rely on a wallet provider Nope, Cardano, Monero, Polkadot, Tezos and ARRR all kept in my own wallet--backed up with seed phrases. I don't keep BTC as I think it's basically crippled (TPS). I have individual wallets for each on both my PC and phone. I'm staking DOT, XTZ, and ADA from my PC wallets. > In 5 years you can name 5 hard forks in the major currencies. BTC has been around for 13 years--not 5. The forks are success stories. Further, forks grant holders equal amounts on each chain--so no coin is lost in this way. The Hive fork remains a great example of on chain (Proof of Stake) governance, and having beat back a centralized hostile takeover, came back valued higher in post. > A non-technical person can't do this. But it's at least possible. Would you discount science and technology purely because you don't understand it?

marcus_holmes 5y ago

but they don't achieve any of those, either. All of them rely on a centralised authority, as can be seen with the bitcoin & ethereum forks - if something goes bad, the people in control will step in and make it better. That means there are people in control. This is not trustless, decentralised or permissionless.

reedjosh 5y ago
There's degrees in everything. Permissionless--nobody can stop a transaction from taking place because of ideology. Decentralised--the miners and the software devs have to agree on something to make a hard change. This has happened so rarely as to be a non-issue. When it does happen, the currency forks and those that want to use it can do so as they please. BTC became LiteCoin, BCH, and BSV from hard protocol forks. Ethereum forked from Ethereum Classic. Hive forked from Steamit as Tron tried a hostile takeover. Trustless -- Here trustless really mean visibility. I can verify everything is correct in the chain myself. I don't have to believe there are gold bars in a vault somewhere, but to a degree it also means I can trust there's no central authority that may be ponzi-ing or ready to abuse the protocol.
- marcus_holmes 5y ago
  Yeah, but you probably rely on a wallet provider, which messes with most of this. The wallet provider can absolutely block a transaction for ideological reasons, and requires you to trust it, and so on. You need to be pretty techy to verify a transaction in the chain yourself, or do any of the other things you talk about. A non-technical person can't do this. They have to trust other people. This really isn't different from trusting that there are gold bars in the vault. It's been what, 5 years ish, since this all blew up? In 5 years you can name 5 hard forks in the major currencies. That's not "rare".
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > You probably rely on a wallet provider Nope, Cardano, Monero, Polkadot, Tezos and ARRR all kept in my own wallet--backed up with seed phrases. I don't keep BTC as I think it's basically crippled (TPS). I have individual wallets for each on both my PC and phone. I'm staking DOT, XTZ, and ADA from my PC wallets. > In 5 years you can name 5 hard forks in the major currencies. BTC has been around for 13 years--not 5. The forks are success stories. Further, forks grant holders equal amounts on each chain--so no coin is lost in this way. The Hive fork remains a great example of on chain (Proof of Stake) governance, and having beat back a centralized hostile takeover, came back valued higher in post. > A non-technical person can't do this. But it's at least possible. Would you discount science and technology purely because you don't understand it?