3 ms·

Of course it's not lol, like anything Blockchain it adds no value and makes everything it touches worse. If Apple loses their domain NFT should they what, just

Of course it's not lol, like anything Blockchain it adds no value and makes everything it touches worse. If Apple loses their domain NFT should they what, just re-brand the business? There's a reason we have a chain of trust and authority leading all the way up to the supreme court and not just "yolo, SFYL." [edit] Like all the distributed identity plays, "not your keys, not your life" is such an asinine model to try and foist on people.

mettamage 5y ago
Well, I agree that we put our trust in technology an awful lot when we do this. But don't we put this trust into technology already? One obstacle you described seems to be very much alive in the blockchain world today which is: what if you lose your key? Who can you turn to? Solving this (somehow) might help us to a more decentralized internet.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > But don't we put this trust into technology already? No, that's why we have courts as the ultimate arbiters. > One obstacle you described seems to be very much alive in the blockchain world today which is: what if you lose your key? Who can you turn to? Solving this (somehow) might help us to a more decentralized internet. Anything short of "not your keys not your life" is a centralization risk and quickly, at the limit, approaches exactly what we have right now but less efficient.
  - dumbfoundded 5y ago
    The courts present a large problem though. Most digital crimes happen across borders. Courts are pretty much useless for ransomware, identity theft, and everything else online when the criminals are in an inconvenient jurisdiction. Blockchain if anything shows the failure of our judicial system. Most of the cybercrimes are enabled by cryptocurrency and our justice system is hopeless to stop these payments.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Nah, they can just ban exchanging fiat for crypto and the problem goes away. It's a lack of political will, not means.
      - cyberge99 5y ago
        Who is “they”? What jurisdiction?
        arcticbull 5y ago
        The country in which businesses are being targeted. Crypto is a payment implement for crime. If the US outlaws buying crypto, companies in the US can't pay their ransomware bills and so will no longer be targeted.
        dumbfoundded 5y ago
        I don't think you can put this genie back in the bottle. The US is a corporation cooperative and the banks are already in crypto and only raising their holdings. Even if the US bans it, it just moves the market more into the dark. Ransomware will still happen and still require crypto payment. The only difference is the hoops companies will do to acquire this crypto in a semi-legal way (probably by using multinational entities to route payments).
        knownjorbist 5y ago
        That would be a gift to every other country that doesn't follow suit.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        That would be devastating to any country that doesn't follow suit. They would be the ones targeted by ransomware. So not only would they get all the ransomware attacks, they would also get all the negative value crypto creates. Since it doesn't create any positive value, that would be an excellent big brain move.
scyclow 5y ago
This is a pretty bad take. If you want a 100% trust less system, then sure. Go for it. But you can incorporate whatever logic you want into your smart contract. This can include giving a specific party the ability to revoke ownership.
barnabee 5y ago
There are plenty of ways to avoid 1:1 mapping between keys and access to/control of things on decentralised networks and blockchains, so really these are not arguments against blockchain just against a specific way you can choose to manage your keys. Simple multisigs are a good start, as is key recovery via m of n (Shamir's secret sharing). More sophisticated systems have been built on top of this to allow, for instance, users to use their (singular) keys and to also allow a process, that remains decentralised, in which multiple [somewhat] trusted parties participate to recover access if they lose their keys or die. These solutions are obviously more complex to build and interact with than a simple public/private keypair, hence why it has taken longer to develop them, audit then, and get to a point where they have a decent and intuitive UX (check out Argent, Gnosis Safe, among many). But if a big part of your argument against blockchain technology in 2021 is about lost keys, I'd highly recommend digging deeper into the state of the art before getting too stuck to a conclusion. There was a time "I wouldn't use my credit card on a website because it's too insecure" made sense too, but HTTPS became the standard and we moved on. So it goes.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I'm well aware of the state of the art lol. But that's not a better system in any way. It's slower, less efficient and provides zero incremental value. And a ton of complexity and risk. Is it possible to solve the problem? Maybe? Maybe not? I don't know. But so what if we do? In what concrete way is this better? It feels like at best we'll be right where we started. It's a solution searching for a problem. A solution to a question nobody is asking. [edit] personally I couldn't care less what database you choose to use to store DNS records - but it should probably be better than what we have now right?
  - gfodor 5y ago
    "What if we could get everything we wanted where the root certificate isn't a nuclear weapon?" There, I asked it.
arghnoname 5y ago
I've done published research in cryptocurrencies in its earlier days when I was in academia and I was very open-minded about it, but ultimately I came to the same conclusion: it's difficult to think of much that it does better than more straight-forward solutions and easy to think of downsides. As I've gotten older and had to interact with various bureaucracies and paperwork, I've only become more convinced that lauded cryptocurrency features, such as (purported) immutability and decentralization, are a bug, not a feature. In my relatively short time on this mortal coil I've probably had to contravene some codified system four or five times by getting the right person in the loop so some rule, regulation, or contractual obligation can be lifted. No matter how hard we try, we can't anticipate everything. People will die, keys (and other vital paperwork) will be lost or destroyed, contracts will have mistakes, fraud will be perpetuated, money will be mistakenly transferred to the wrong parties, etc. All of these have happened to me and all were resolved by a sometimes annoying but ultimately effective system set up to handle such cases with some backstop authority empowered to fix things. All of us will eventually get into some hell where we need a human to override the computer and just make the sensible thing happen. How often is it that we're on a support line just trying to get an exception to some stupid corner case into which we've gotten ourselves. It's always a relief when you can finally plead your case to the higher authority, whatever that may be, and get some damn relief. Why aren't more people concerned about a world where this isn't possible? It's an honest question. It totally baffles me.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  The iron law of blockchain is that if you think blockchain is a solution to a given problem, you don't know enough about the problem.
- knownjorbist 5y ago
  My takeaway from Web3 so far has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, having a wallet means you already have a pseudonymous account with payments for every dApp that has ever and will ever exist, and conversely the developers of said app reap the benefits of that fact for basically free. But this dynamic opens a whole can of worms in terms of risk.
- southerntofu 5y ago
southerntofu 5y ago
> There's a reason we have a chain of trust and authority leading all the way up to the supreme court and not just "yolo, SFYL." I partly agree with the argument, but i sincerely hope "your" supreme court will never be responsible for Internet governance. For what it's worth, i sincerely hope "my" constitutional council (France) will never be responsible for that either. Both are equally corrupt and reactionary entities, and i personally don't have any sort of faith in any Nation State whatsoever, as these entities were formed and architectured to oppress people and promote elites.

mettamage 5y ago

Well, I agree that we put our trust in technology an awful lot when we do this. But don't we put this trust into technology already? One obstacle you described seems to be very much alive in the blockchain world today which is: what if you lose your key? Who can you turn to? Solving this (somehow) might help us to a more decentralized internet.

arcticbull 5y ago
> But don't we put this trust into technology already? No, that's why we have courts as the ultimate arbiters. > One obstacle you described seems to be very much alive in the blockchain world today which is: what if you lose your key? Who can you turn to? Solving this (somehow) might help us to a more decentralized internet. Anything short of "not your keys not your life" is a centralization risk and quickly, at the limit, approaches exactly what we have right now but less efficient.
- dumbfoundded 5y ago
  The courts present a large problem though. Most digital crimes happen across borders. Courts are pretty much useless for ransomware, identity theft, and everything else online when the criminals are in an inconvenient jurisdiction. Blockchain if anything shows the failure of our judicial system. Most of the cybercrimes are enabled by cryptocurrency and our justice system is hopeless to stop these payments.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Nah, they can just ban exchanging fiat for crypto and the problem goes away. It's a lack of political will, not means.
    - cyberge99 5y ago
      Who is “they”? What jurisdiction?
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        The country in which businesses are being targeted. Crypto is a payment implement for crime. If the US outlaws buying crypto, companies in the US can't pay their ransomware bills and so will no longer be targeted.
        dumbfoundded 5y ago
        I don't think you can put this genie back in the bottle. The US is a corporation cooperative and the banks are already in crypto and only raising their holdings. Even if the US bans it, it just moves the market more into the dark. Ransomware will still happen and still require crypto payment. The only difference is the hoops companies will do to acquire this crypto in a semi-legal way (probably by using multinational entities to route payments).
        knownjorbist 5y ago
        That would be a gift to every other country that doesn't follow suit.
        arcticbull 5y ago
        That would be devastating to any country that doesn't follow suit. They would be the ones targeted by ransomware. So not only would they get all the ransomware attacks, they would also get all the negative value crypto creates. Since it doesn't create any positive value, that would be an excellent big brain move.

scyclow 5y ago

This is a pretty bad take. If you want a 100% trust less system, then sure. Go for it. But you can incorporate whatever logic you want into your smart contract. This can include giving a specific party the ability to revoke ownership.

barnabee 5y ago

There are plenty of ways to avoid 1:1 mapping between keys and access to/control of things on decentralised networks and blockchains, so really these are not arguments against blockchain just against a specific way you can choose to manage your keys. Simple multisigs are a good start, as is key recovery via m of n (Shamir's secret sharing). More sophisticated systems have been built on top of this to allow, for instance, users to use their (singular) keys and to also allow a process, that remains decentralised, in which multiple [somewhat] trusted parties participate to recover access if they lose their keys or die. These solutions are obviously more complex to build and interact with than a simple public/private keypair, hence why it has taken longer to develop them, audit then, and get to a point where they have a decent and intuitive UX (check out Argent, Gnosis Safe, among many). But if a big part of your argument against blockchain technology in 2021 is about lost keys, I'd highly recommend digging deeper into the state of the art before getting too stuck to a conclusion. There was a time "I wouldn't use my credit card on a website because it's too insecure" made sense too, but HTTPS became the standard and we moved on. So it goes.

arcticbull 5y ago
I'm well aware of the state of the art lol. But that's not a better system in any way. It's slower, less efficient and provides zero incremental value. And a ton of complexity and risk. Is it possible to solve the problem? Maybe? Maybe not? I don't know. But so what if we do? In what concrete way is this better? It feels like at best we'll be right where we started. It's a solution searching for a problem. A solution to a question nobody is asking. [edit] personally I couldn't care less what database you choose to use to store DNS records - but it should probably be better than what we have now right?
- gfodor 5y ago
  "What if we could get everything we wanted where the root certificate isn't a nuclear weapon?" There, I asked it.

arghnoname 5y ago

I've done published research in cryptocurrencies in its earlier days when I was in academia and I was very open-minded about it, but ultimately I came to the same conclusion: it's difficult to think of much that it does better than more straight-forward solutions and easy to think of downsides. As I've gotten older and had to interact with various bureaucracies and paperwork, I've only become more convinced that lauded cryptocurrency features, such as (purported) immutability and decentralization, are a bug, not a feature. In my relatively short time on this mortal coil I've probably had to contravene some codified system four or five times by getting the right person in the loop so some rule, regulation, or contractual obligation can be lifted. No matter how hard we try, we can't anticipate everything. People will die, keys (and other vital paperwork) will be lost or destroyed, contracts will have mistakes, fraud will be perpetuated, money will be mistakenly transferred to the wrong parties, etc. All of these have happened to me and all were resolved by a sometimes annoying but ultimately effective system set up to handle such cases with some backstop authority empowered to fix things. All of us will eventually get into some hell where we need a human to override the computer and just make the sensible thing happen. How often is it that we're on a support line just trying to get an exception to some stupid corner case into which we've gotten ourselves. It's always a relief when you can finally plead your case to the higher authority, whatever that may be, and get some damn relief. Why aren't more people concerned about a world where this isn't possible? It's an honest question. It totally baffles me.

arcticbull 5y ago
The iron law of blockchain is that if you think blockchain is a solution to a given problem, you don't know enough about the problem.
knownjorbist 5y ago
My takeaway from Web3 so far has been a mixed bag. On the one hand, having a wallet means you already have a pseudonymous account with payments for every dApp that has ever and will ever exist, and conversely the developers of said app reap the benefits of that fact for basically free. But this dynamic opens a whole can of worms in terms of risk.
southerntofu 5y ago

southerntofu 5y ago

> There's a reason we have a chain of trust and authority leading all the way up to the supreme court and not just "yolo, SFYL." I partly agree with the argument, but i sincerely hope "your" supreme court will never be responsible for Internet governance. For what it's worth, i sincerely hope "my" constitutional council (France) will never be responsible for that either. Both are equally corrupt and reactionary entities, and i personally don't have any sort of faith in any Nation State whatsoever, as these entities were formed and architectured to oppress people and promote elites.