7 ms·
Do You Need a Blockchain? (2017)
- Sebb767 5y agoIn a similar vein: http://iscaliforniaonfire.com/ http://iscaliforniaonfire.com/
- mabub24 5y agoSee also: https://isbillonthewagon.com/ https://isbillonthewagon.com/
- freemint 5y agoThere is also a similar site whether the james webb space telescope has launched yet. I can't seem to find the link though.
- freemint 5y agoMhh, i couldn't find it. But this website is fun: http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com/ http://www.hasthelargehadroncolliderdestroyedtheworldyet.com...
- woofie11 5y agoThis seems wrong.... git is a form of blockchain. My use for a blockchain is for a system where even if I were the only writer, I would want there to be an archival, tamperproof record which anyone can verify. I publish a daily hash, which confirms everything behind it. I don't know of a better way to accomplish that than a simple blockchain, publishing daily SHA hashes. It is overhyped and oversold as a technology, but it has its uses. Perhaps they're not the same as the uses we have today, but they definitely exist. When radio was invented, the original planned use cases had little to do with what it was adopted for eventually.
- klodolph 5y agoI think the definition of "blockchain" should include some notion of distributed consensus. Git doesn't have that at all.
- woofie11 5y agoAt present, the accepted definition doesn't. From Wikipedia: "A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are linked together using cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree). The timestamp proves that the transaction data existed when the block was published in order to get into its hash. As blocks each contain information about the block previous to it, they form a chain, with each additional block reinforcing the ones before it. Therefore, blockchains are resistant to modification of their data because once recorded, the data in any given block cannot be altered retroactively without altering all subsequent blocks." Perhaps it ought to, but I would prefer a different word ("distributed ledger?"). For "blockchain," I actually rather like the simpler definition of a cryptographically-linked chain of blocks. This is contradicted by the popularly-believed inventor / date of invention.
- Tialco 5y agoI think people use "permissionless blockchains" when they're referring to Nakamoto Consensus / Proof of Stake / whatever + Blockchain.
- klodolph 5y agoWikipedia is, at best, an imperfect attempt to record and explain the accepted definition. I think that Wikipedia's definition of blockchain does not match usage, and therefore it is in error and should be corrected.
- schoen 5y agoHave you encountered common usage that calls git a blockchain, as opposed to a DVCS or Merkle tree?
- BatFastard 5y agoNo!
- brap 5y agoYou forgot the most important question: >Do you need to generate media buzz and mislead investors? I've heard of about 10 local "blockchain" startups and I swear to god this was their #1 reason of using a blockchain (it did work partially for one of them, although they eventually dropped the blockchain, and failed anyway).
- RyJones 5y agoIn my day job[0], I talk to a lot of start-up ventures about blockchain. Only one was honest enough to say they were only using it because, at the time, it was easier to get funding. [0]: https://hyperledger.org/ https://hyperledger.org/
- gapeslape 5y agoIt seems that the only two possible answers are "perhaps" and "no". If the answer is "perhaps", why don't the authors list viable alternatives? Perhaps this is how we could all actually learn something new.
- meowkit 5y agoThe paper linked explains what the “perhaps” are. The website is seemingly trying to drive a narrative that blockchains are unnecessary.
- Sebb767 5y agoI think it attempts to paint them as overhyped. If the target would be to put down blockchains, the page would simply be a "No". But it's true that we throw blockchains at things that don't need a blockchain.
- anyfactor 5y agoI kinda see the point though. State management is bundled with frontend development in such a way that even for simple projects it almost seems like necessity for most people. Don't use things that you are not hundred percent sure you need. Blockchain is a robust solution for high complex state management issues but most people will never end up using it for its full potential. Even if you did there often are alternatives that performs much better for your need. People will try to bend their projects to meet the blockchain need rather than just use it when you need to use it.
- dehrmann 5y agoThe strongest case for using blockchain tech right now seems to be increasing you chance of getting VC funding.
- vmception 5y agoAnd then actually growing a community that uses your blockchain that you sell all your tokens to as revenue, and then a couple of NFTs and there’s nothing wrong with that we are in the money game, this is a way to do that and you can get bankrolled for it
- void_mint 5y agoSaddened this wasn't just a static HTML page that said "No"
- Evidlo 5y agoThis UI is so confusing on mobile. There is no visual indication that you're supposed to swipe left for the questions to show up. Honestly it should probably just be presented as a static flow chart instead of a quiz with these strange 3D cube transitions.
- throwaway744678 5y agoClicking "learn more" worked well enough for me, no swiping.
- sschueller 5y agoDo you need a self driving car?
- GDC7 5y agoOf course you do. For fundraising purposes. And for sale purposes. Nobody wants to say it but a bold founder would raise money as blockchain project, would sell to clients as a blockchain project but would operate it via a common database. When money comes in , then you can disclose it and say that you did something completely different , VCs and clients would look like fools considering the quality of the product even without blockcahin and everybody would live happily ever after. Sometimes people who live in hypersocial echo chambers such as the VC party scene or even your amateur Clubhouse angel investor scene, they have to be dragged kicking and screaming out of their ideas which they acquired in the aforementioned hypersocial echochambers. And that is tons of work in and of itsef. It's much easier to say "Oh yes we are totally commited to blockchain"
- brundolf 5y agoBetteridge’s law has never applied so well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines
- ilaksh 5y agoFor substantive projects, whether you 100% need a blockchain to have a business related to the idea is not the right question. This is about creating commons for people to use that is trusted. It's fundamentally a different paradigm and mindset. Can you technically do something similar to your idea with Postgres? So what. Do you have to put some degree of trust in another party? So what. That doesn't eliminate completely any benefit of an auditable system.
- milansuk 5y agoWhy first thing people think about blockchain is storage? I like ownership and transparency. Let me give you one example. Many HN readers complain about App store centralization, but what if there was decentralize app store, where code and data live on the blockchain and anyone can propose code changes, and then thousands or millions of users vote for what they like. If you think this can be done with a centralized server it can not because those who control the server have most of the votes no matter what. But it can be done with a transparent blockchain network.
- qsort 5y agoThat's just a very complicated way to say "git". There's no blockchain in sight anywhere.
- drdeca 5y agoHey, it’s a chain (or, DAG really, but kinda close) of commits, right?
- qsort 5y agoI mean yeah, but that reminds me of when Facebook launched Libra and they claimed it operated on a blockchain because the core algorithm involved a "chain" of "blocks"... If you want to call git a blockchain I guess that's fine, but it's not what most people have in mind when they think of "blockchain".
- drdeca 5y agoYeah, it's a stretch and I'm partially joking.
- edgyquant 5y agoThis would hilariously slow if it used a blockchain.
- nephanth 5y agoYou can have a decentralized datastore without blockchain, if you want a decentralized rating system without central authority, you might just want a web of trust. In this usecase, using blockchain would just put the voting power in the hands of those with computational power...
- nathias 5y agoWhy would I listen to someone that can't even setup a Let's Encrypt certificate?
- nathias 5y agoYes I do, because I want decentralization.
- bob229 5y agoNo. It is an entirely useless technology. Absolute trash