3 ms·

> it moves records of transactions from many private places to one public place True for some of its current incarnations, but it is absolutely not a built-in

> it moves records of transactions from many private places to one public place True for some of its current incarnations, but it is absolutely not a built-in limitation and therefore not a valid criticism of the entire space. As a matter of fact, a number of existing blockchains are already entirely opaque to analysis (zcash, monero, grin, beam, etc...), and in these, the effort required to actually connect participants and transactions is typically orders of magnitude larger than the economic rewards you'd derive from the answer.

hooande 5y ago
if it's opaque to analysis, what's the point in using a blockchain? why not just a central database?
- ur-whale 5y ago
  > why not just a central database? I would have thought this to be obvious, but these chains, while anonymous still have the following attributes: - decentralized - permissionless - does not rely on third-party trust A central database has none of these attributes.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    Really? So I can go onto one of these chains and transfer anything to a new address without a third party blessing my transaction? I was under the impression that nearly the entire thing is based on some form of consensus. Consensus is necessarily by third parties. So if the consensus drives decisions on what gets accepted and what does not, is that not a permission? If there is a single dominant consensus, is that not centralized?
    - che_shirecat 5y ago
      centralized = one party holds all the power. decentralized = many parties, each of which do not hold all the power in isolation, therefore must come to consensus on a case-by-case basis to make decisions. equating decentralized consensus to "oh but that just means they become a centralized single party in aggregate" is an incredibly stupid take. just because I can agree with 4 other parties that one transaction is valid does not that mean that I somehow merge with all 4 of those parties into an entity that has the exact same interests for everything else. can you understand that?
  - hooande 5y ago
    if you can't see the transactions, aren't you trusting a 3rd party that can? further, none of this is "obvious"

hooande 5y ago

if it's opaque to analysis, what's the point in using a blockchain? why not just a central database?

ur-whale 5y ago
> why not just a central database? I would have thought this to be obvious, but these chains, while anonymous still have the following attributes: - decentralized - permissionless - does not rely on third-party trust A central database has none of these attributes.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  Really? So I can go onto one of these chains and transfer anything to a new address without a third party blessing my transaction? I was under the impression that nearly the entire thing is based on some form of consensus. Consensus is necessarily by third parties. So if the consensus drives decisions on what gets accepted and what does not, is that not a permission? If there is a single dominant consensus, is that not centralized?
  - che_shirecat 5y ago
    centralized = one party holds all the power. decentralized = many parties, each of which do not hold all the power in isolation, therefore must come to consensus on a case-by-case basis to make decisions. equating decentralized consensus to "oh but that just means they become a centralized single party in aggregate" is an incredibly stupid take. just because I can agree with 4 other parties that one transaction is valid does not that mean that I somehow merge with all 4 of those parties into an entity that has the exact same interests for everything else. can you understand that?
- hooande 5y ago
  if you can't see the transactions, aren't you trusting a 3rd party that can? further, none of this is "obvious"