6 ms·

I never really understand the hype behind blockchain related technologies. The low transaction throughput, high compute resource demands makes it pretty unusabl

I never really understand the hype behind blockchain related technologies. The low transaction throughput, high compute resource demands makes it pretty unusable in most cases. Lots of workaround either has security problem or violated the idea of decentralization of blockchain, which makes it meaningless to use blockchain. Oh, there is also PoS which doesn't need CPU for mining, but doesn't anyone think it's irony that it makes rich people richer? Decentralization doesn't mean there shouldn't be one or some centralized nodes. That means open protocol, and server cannot control everything (for example, with end to end encryption). So that anyone can run the server, and user can use the service without trust the server. Most importantly, non regulation doesn't always mean good. Otherwise why we need law and government? Why not live in the wild west and let strong people kill weak people? Why not let big company play the monopoly?

vkk8 5y ago
I'm also puzzled by the fact that EU is funding this. Usually states and state-like entities are exactly the ones who don't want people to use decentralized technologies, because they often make laws difficult or impossible to enforce. In fact, wanting to circumvent laws is the only reason why people en mass would ever want to use decentralized technologies. I'm not necessarily always against this (there are some really stupid laws that should be broken), but I'm pretty annoyed by how people try to pretend that there is demand for these technologies for any other reason.
- angelzen 5y ago
  EU is way behind in tech. Centralized web means centralized web in US or China. Probably the push for decentralized web will fail, but at least it appears that EU does something to reduce dependence on foreign superpowers.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    The EU could also subsidize centralized EU-based tech. What are the largest tech companies in the US and China based around? Ads, payments, cloud computing, and media consumption ("FAANG"). Europe already has solid, utility-priced payment infrastructure. Ads are arguably toxic (especially Facebook), and cloud computing is relatively straightforward to implement with talent and funding. Europe could even take a page from China and use regulation to strongly encourage European customers and businesses to not use US products and services (GDPR, for example).
    - pkos98 5y ago
      > The EU could also subsidize centralized EU-based tech [...] cloud computing is relatively straightforward to implement with talent and funding. Exactly this is already happening with Gaia-X[0]. Its mostly pushed by German companies, along with French ones. But because of huge involvement of Deutsche Telekom, BMW and such I dont have high expectations. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIA-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIA-X
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        I agree with the degree of your expectations. Europe needs a DARPA/YC model led by doers, not entrenched corporate interests or bureaucrats. Europe and America are their own worst enemies, in different ways.
- native_samples 5y ago
  The EU sprays grant money around like candy. They'll fund more or less anything that appeals to academic sensibilities - at the scale it subsidizes things there's no time to consider the impact on political strategy. This one was pitched as, "a European initiative for a Human Internet that respects the fundamental values of privacy, participation and diversity". So the EU would have just seen the buzzwords "privacy" and "diversity" and said great, have some money.
  - anigbrowl 5y ago
    Sounds awful (/s)
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Then again, perhaps political tropes about the role and motivations of state actors only partly capture reality, and the dynamics of public vs private interests are not necessarily zero-sum games.
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  >>I'm also puzzled by the fact that EU is funding this. Usually states and state-like entities are exactly the ones who don't want people to use decentralized technologies, because they often make laws difficult or impossible to enforce. Ideally, the state represents the interests of the people, and it's in the interest of the people for decentralized technologies to be better funded, so that abusive government and corporate power can be checked. Therefore, one of the activities of a truly democratic government will be to contribute to the creation and enhancement of technologies and institutions that act as non-political checks on government and concentrated corporate power, like privacy and decentralized communication protocols, physical and electronic cash, etc.
- account42 5y ago
  > In fact, wanting to circumvent laws is the only reason why people en mass would ever want to use decentralized technologies. There are plenty other reasons, like not wanting private corporations to be gatekeepers of society.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
themolecularman 5y ago
I like crypto, but damn it's inefficient and costly. Even the crypto that's newer than Bitcoin (all of it?) and therefore more efficient (not proof-of-work/stake?) is still not efficient in cost/time/other-resources/etc.
- milansuk 5y ago
  >inefficient and costly That is the best part of today's blockchains - huge space for improvements! I don't see the same opportunity in centralized services/protocols which are kind of "done" and control by few big tech companies with so many resources, which they use to keep that control.
abetusk 5y ago
Cryptocurrency uses the blockchain as a fundamental building block. For good faith proponents of cryptocurrencies, the appeal is that they provide the potential to do low friction digital payments (e.g. "micropayments"), reduce the barrier to entry to participate in financial transactions and allow for a single, global unifying currency. You may disagree that Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency, has the potential to do this or whether it can actually do this, but that's the appeal. Proof of Work (PoW) is probably necessary for a decentralized currency [0]. Proof of Stake (PoS) can be a valid cryptocurrency but fails in it's centralization criteria [1]. The Lightning network provides a layer-2 solution to payments, increasing transaction throughput and, thus, reducing PoW energy usage [2]. This might get into centralization territory but maybe this is a happy compromise between energy usage, throughput and centralization. In some sense, we have many "layer-2" like structures on the internet, with DNS caching, replication and load balancing etc. > Most importantly, non regulation doesn't always mean good. Otherwise why we need law and government? Why not live in the wild west and let strong people kill weak people? Why not let big company play the monopoly? As a counterpoint, regulation isn't always a good thing when it's been captured by hedge funds, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies or other special interests. I'm having a hard time understanding if the line "Why not let big company play the monopoly?" was meant to be rhetorical in the affirmative or the negative. Are you suggesting that company monopolies are a good thing? Or are you suggesting that a decentralized currency unseating what is essentially the current banking monopoly is a bad thing? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDGliHwstM8&t=490s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDGliHwstM8&t=490s [1] https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network
- wb14123 5y ago
  Yes, the intention of Bitcoin is good, and as a research paper, the idea of Blockchain is very genius and interesting. But back to the use case, it must has the basic function first then add more features to it. With low throughput and high fee, it can barely be used widely in normal life, especially for "micropayments". Then what's the point to make it decentralized? I had some experience with L2 solution, Polygon specifically. As you mentioned, it compromises security or/and decentralization. And I don't think it's a "happy" compromise, since the weak point of a system depends on it's weakest point. If L2 chain has a security or centralization problem, then it can be exploited so that the whole system has such problem. Even if the blockchain technology can replace current banking system, it's not the solution for problems like monopoly. It just replaced the companies/organizations that are in the monopoly position. Look at the crypto concurrency exchange market and mining farms, you can get a sense. To make it clear, by "Why not let big company play the monopoly?", I mean monopoly is a bad thing, which would happen if there is no regulation. So in the system of Blockchains, we still need the regulations we need in the current system. I know there are some problems in our political and economical system, but I don't believe Blockchain is the answer.
Geee 5y ago
It's becoming clear that decentralized blockchain isn't worth it for anything else than solving the trust issues in monetary and banking systems, which Bitcoin does. Meanwhile, the altcoin "crypto industry" is becoming more and more like a casino and not even trying to solve anything. These people just chase profits, without even thinking of use cases any more. Decentralization isn't important any more; decentralization is old and the next buzzword is more valuable. There are the glorious leaders, the influencers, and the fans. Everyone is doing their part to perpetrate the scam for their own profit.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > isn't worth it for anything else than solving the trust issues in monetary and banking systems, which Bitcoin does. No, it doesn't solve that.

vkk8 5y ago

I'm also puzzled by the fact that EU is funding this. Usually states and state-like entities are exactly the ones who don't want people to use decentralized technologies, because they often make laws difficult or impossible to enforce. In fact, wanting to circumvent laws is the only reason why people en mass would ever want to use decentralized technologies. I'm not necessarily always against this (there are some really stupid laws that should be broken), but I'm pretty annoyed by how people try to pretend that there is demand for these technologies for any other reason.

angelzen 5y ago
EU is way behind in tech. Centralized web means centralized web in US or China. Probably the push for decentralized web will fail, but at least it appears that EU does something to reduce dependence on foreign superpowers.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  The EU could also subsidize centralized EU-based tech. What are the largest tech companies in the US and China based around? Ads, payments, cloud computing, and media consumption ("FAANG"). Europe already has solid, utility-priced payment infrastructure. Ads are arguably toxic (especially Facebook), and cloud computing is relatively straightforward to implement with talent and funding. Europe could even take a page from China and use regulation to strongly encourage European customers and businesses to not use US products and services (GDPR, for example).
  - pkos98 5y ago
    > The EU could also subsidize centralized EU-based tech [...] cloud computing is relatively straightforward to implement with talent and funding. Exactly this is already happening with Gaia-X[0]. Its mostly pushed by German companies, along with French ones. But because of huge involvement of Deutsche Telekom, BMW and such I dont have high expectations. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIA-X https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAIA-X
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      I agree with the degree of your expectations. Europe needs a DARPA/YC model led by doers, not entrenched corporate interests or bureaucrats. Europe and America are their own worst enemies, in different ways.
native_samples 5y ago
The EU sprays grant money around like candy. They'll fund more or less anything that appeals to academic sensibilities - at the scale it subsidizes things there's no time to consider the impact on political strategy. This one was pitched as, "a European initiative for a Human Internet that respects the fundamental values of privacy, participation and diversity". So the EU would have just seen the buzzwords "privacy" and "diversity" and said great, have some money.
- anigbrowl 5y ago
  Sounds awful (/s)
anigbrowl 5y ago
Then again, perhaps political tropes about the role and motivations of state actors only partly capture reality, and the dynamics of public vs private interests are not necessarily zero-sum games.
CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>I'm also puzzled by the fact that EU is funding this. Usually states and state-like entities are exactly the ones who don't want people to use decentralized technologies, because they often make laws difficult or impossible to enforce. Ideally, the state represents the interests of the people, and it's in the interest of the people for decentralized technologies to be better funded, so that abusive government and corporate power can be checked. Therefore, one of the activities of a truly democratic government will be to contribute to the creation and enhancement of technologies and institutions that act as non-political checks on government and concentrated corporate power, like privacy and decentralized communication protocols, physical and electronic cash, etc.
account42 5y ago
> In fact, wanting to circumvent laws is the only reason why people en mass would ever want to use decentralized technologies. There are plenty other reasons, like not wanting private corporations to be gatekeepers of society.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

themolecularman 5y ago

I like crypto, but damn it's inefficient and costly. Even the crypto that's newer than Bitcoin (all of it?) and therefore more efficient (not proof-of-work/stake?) is still not efficient in cost/time/other-resources/etc.

milansuk 5y ago
>inefficient and costly That is the best part of today's blockchains - huge space for improvements! I don't see the same opportunity in centralized services/protocols which are kind of "done" and control by few big tech companies with so many resources, which they use to keep that control.

abetusk 5y ago

Cryptocurrency uses the blockchain as a fundamental building block. For good faith proponents of cryptocurrencies, the appeal is that they provide the potential to do low friction digital payments (e.g. "micropayments"), reduce the barrier to entry to participate in financial transactions and allow for a single, global unifying currency. You may disagree that Bitcoin, or any other cryptocurrency, has the potential to do this or whether it can actually do this, but that's the appeal. Proof of Work (PoW) is probably necessary for a decentralized currency [0]. Proof of Stake (PoS) can be a valid cryptocurrency but fails in it's centralization criteria [1]. The Lightning network provides a layer-2 solution to payments, increasing transaction throughput and, thus, reducing PoW energy usage [2]. This might get into centralization territory but maybe this is a happy compromise between energy usage, throughput and centralization. In some sense, we have many "layer-2" like structures on the internet, with DNS caching, replication and load balancing etc. > Most importantly, non regulation doesn't always mean good. Otherwise why we need law and government? Why not live in the wild west and let strong people kill weak people? Why not let big company play the monopoly? As a counterpoint, regulation isn't always a good thing when it's been captured by hedge funds, oil companies, pharmaceutical companies or other special interests. I'm having a hard time understanding if the line "Why not let big company play the monopoly?" was meant to be rhetorical in the affirmative or the negative. Are you suggesting that company monopolies are a good thing? Or are you suggesting that a decentralized currency unseating what is essentially the current banking monopoly is a bad thing? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDGliHwstM8&t=490s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDGliHwstM8&t=490s [1] https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-of-Stake-Fallacy https://github.com/libbitcoin/libbitcoin-system/wiki/Proof-o... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lightning_Network

wb14123 5y ago
Yes, the intention of Bitcoin is good, and as a research paper, the idea of Blockchain is very genius and interesting. But back to the use case, it must has the basic function first then add more features to it. With low throughput and high fee, it can barely be used widely in normal life, especially for "micropayments". Then what's the point to make it decentralized? I had some experience with L2 solution, Polygon specifically. As you mentioned, it compromises security or/and decentralization. And I don't think it's a "happy" compromise, since the weak point of a system depends on it's weakest point. If L2 chain has a security or centralization problem, then it can be exploited so that the whole system has such problem. Even if the blockchain technology can replace current banking system, it's not the solution for problems like monopoly. It just replaced the companies/organizations that are in the monopoly position. Look at the crypto concurrency exchange market and mining farms, you can get a sense. To make it clear, by "Why not let big company play the monopoly?", I mean monopoly is a bad thing, which would happen if there is no regulation. So in the system of Blockchains, we still need the regulations we need in the current system. I know there are some problems in our political and economical system, but I don't believe Blockchain is the answer.

Geee 5y ago

It's becoming clear that decentralized blockchain isn't worth it for anything else than solving the trust issues in monetary and banking systems, which Bitcoin does. Meanwhile, the altcoin "crypto industry" is becoming more and more like a casino and not even trying to solve anything. These people just chase profits, without even thinking of use cases any more. Decentralization isn't important any more; decentralization is old and the next buzzword is more valuable. There are the glorious leaders, the influencers, and the fans. Everyone is doing their part to perpetrate the scam for their own profit.

dmitriid 5y ago
> isn't worth it for anything else than solving the trust issues in monetary and banking systems, which Bitcoin does. No, it doesn't solve that.