3 ms·
> problems that could not have been solved "the old way" (i.e. trusting a central body). If this is the criterion then the answer is going to be "nothing". Bec
by jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
> problems that could not have been solved "the old way" (i.e. trusting a central body).
If this is the criterion then the answer is going to be "nothing". Because anything a blockchain can do, somebody running 1 server could do. The whole point is to do things just without the central authority part.
- speedgoose 5y agoI think the question is about what requires to be decentralised using a blockchain technology. The answer seems to be nothing.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoThen it's not really a question of "what are blockchains good for?" but rather "what is decentralization good for?" And that's not a technology question.
- speedgoose 5y agoI think it's about decentralisation and the blockchain together. Because there is plenty of decentralised success stories, they are not hard to find.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoTrue, there were decentralized systems before blockchains. Email for example. The reason you would use a blockchain in a decentralized system is if you need to solve a double spend problem. So money, or things with monetary value. But the reason to decentralize those things in the first place is a philosophical one.
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoJust to play devils advocate - email isn't a great example. In the end, it's become a very centralized service. The protocols allow for decentralization, but these days a very large chunk of email ends up just being data movements in Google's databases and storage systems. I could go on (the internet itself is moving largely to centralized servers in one of a handful of providers) but the point is - centralization seems to always win out. Can you name a handful of services which started out decentralized and by and large stayed that way? Here are ones which didnt: Banking, stock trading, email, the internet (defined as computers connected together over tcp/ip), podcasting, blogging, music, gambling, video... Centralization tends to enable scale, dispute resolution, trust, ability to change. There are downsides to it, but it seems they are easily outweighed according to customers and history.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoI think the reason email is now more "centralized" (in the sense that most people use a few big providers like Gmail) is because most people just don't care about decentralization (at least for email). Not because the protocol wouldn't have scaled otherwise. Gmail works well and people aren't going to drop it just on principle. Systems that started decentralized and remained so... BitTorrent I guess? I can't think of many, honestly. Most decentralized systems don't have a monetary incentive layer to keep people running it the way a blockchain does.
- danielmarkbruce 5y agoYup, totally agree with the why. Many of the examples I gave don't have scaling issues per se. It's because people don't care and there are other benefits of central services. It's kind of the point though - the vast majority of people just don't find decentralization a strong value proposition.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y agoAgreed. I'm under no illusion that most people are fine with the status quo. It's one of the reasons this stuff has not been very well received.