4 ms·

>blockchain on principle - as opposed to problematic elements within the contemporary blockchain space The problems are impossible to decouple from "blockchain

>blockchain on principle - as opposed to problematic elements within the contemporary blockchain space The problems are impossible to decouple from "blockchain on principle" because the problems are intrinsic to the data structure itself, not "contemporary" approaches to the data structure implementation. I am probably aligned with you politically (if not more radical in my libertarian sentiments), and I can sympathize with the stated goals of the crypto space/bitcoin whitepaper. The problem is that the technology and computer science behind it fails completely to deliver on these goals from both an abstract and practical perspective.

CryptoPunk 5y ago
>>The problems are impossible to decouple from "blockchain on principle" because the problems are intrinsic to the data structure itself, not "contemporary" approaches to the data structure implementation. If that is indeed the belief, then I concede that is an example of someone opposed to blockchains in principle, for a reason that is not an illiberal political agenda. In any case, I like to think I am pretty well informed on blockchain technology, and I can't think of a single problem that currently afflicts the space, that cannot be solved through engineering a solution that does not involve moving away from the general blockchain architecture, or more generally, a solution that does not involve moving away from autonomous ledgers that use cryptoeconomics to maintain consensus.
- defaultprimate 5y ago
  >a solution that does not involve moving away from autonomous ledgers that use cryptoeconomics to maintain consensus. What are your proposed solutions to identified problems then?
  - CryptoPunk 5y ago
    Can you give me an example of a problem with blockchain, that you think is intractable, because it's inherent to the data structure?
    - defaultprimate 5y ago
      Irreversible transactions
      - CryptoPunk 5y ago
        A reversible layer on top is possible through smart contracts.
        defaultprimate 5y ago
        A transaction is definitionally something that has been written to the blockchain, so no it isn't. In the case of layered solutions, you're no longer using blockchain. If we want to count uncomitted transactions on a second layer as "reversible", that comes with a host of its own issues, and points out another intrinsic flaw of blockchain: incapable of fulfilling its philosophical purpose, and requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues. https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-network-is-satoshi-nakamotos-worst-nightmare-8402be4a4e73 https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-net... https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>A transaction is definitionally something that has been written to the blockchain, so no it isn't. You can have a smart contract that writes reversible transactions to the blockchain. This would mean that the smart contract imposes a delay for withdrawals, to allow time for any possible requests for reversals. There could optionally be an expedited wirhdrawal upon some set of authorities deeming the balance as finalized and not subject to any reversals. >>requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues. Even when you lose some of the benefits of blockchains, via secondary solutions like a reversible transaction smart contract, you retain some benefits, like: * optionality, e.g. those who are fine with irreversible transactions are free to use them, * permissionless market entry, e.g. any party is free to deploy their own 'reversible transaction' smart contract, giving payment consumers maximum choice * stronger guarantees of the integrity of transaction processing, with transparency into any tampering, given the code that executes the transactions, along with the transaction itself, is publicly auditible * debundling the provision of the different services that are required for transaction processing, by allowing transactions to be processed by immutably open smart contracts that no third party can later close off access to.

CryptoPunk 5y ago

>>The problems are impossible to decouple from "blockchain on principle" because the problems are intrinsic to the data structure itself, not "contemporary" approaches to the data structure implementation. If that is indeed the belief, then I concede that is an example of someone opposed to blockchains in principle, for a reason that is not an illiberal political agenda. In any case, I like to think I am pretty well informed on blockchain technology, and I can't think of a single problem that currently afflicts the space, that cannot be solved through engineering a solution that does not involve moving away from the general blockchain architecture, or more generally, a solution that does not involve moving away from autonomous ledgers that use cryptoeconomics to maintain consensus.

defaultprimate 5y ago
>a solution that does not involve moving away from autonomous ledgers that use cryptoeconomics to maintain consensus. What are your proposed solutions to identified problems then?
- CryptoPunk 5y ago
  Can you give me an example of a problem with blockchain, that you think is intractable, because it's inherent to the data structure?
  - defaultprimate 5y ago
    Irreversible transactions
    - CryptoPunk 5y ago
      A reversible layer on top is possible through smart contracts.
      - defaultprimate 5y ago
        A transaction is definitionally something that has been written to the blockchain, so no it isn't. In the case of layered solutions, you're no longer using blockchain. If we want to count uncomitted transactions on a second layer as "reversible", that comes with a host of its own issues, and points out another intrinsic flaw of blockchain: incapable of fulfilling its philosophical purpose, and requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues. https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-network-is-satoshi-nakamotos-worst-nightmare-8402be4a4e73 https://cryptowhale.medium.com/why-the-bitcoin-lightning-net... https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network https://github.com/davidshares/Lightning-Network
        CryptoPunk 5y ago
        >>A transaction is definitionally something that has been written to the blockchain, so no it isn't. You can have a smart contract that writes reversible transactions to the blockchain. This would mean that the smart contract imposes a delay for withdrawals, to allow time for any possible requests for reversals. There could optionally be an expedited wirhdrawal upon some set of authorities deeming the balance as finalized and not subject to any reversals. >>requires secondary solutions that violate the very core philosophy of the data structure in hopes of overcoming just one of its many issues. Even when you lose some of the benefits of blockchains, via secondary solutions like a reversible transaction smart contract, you retain some benefits, like: * optionality, e.g. those who are fine with irreversible transactions are free to use them, * permissionless market entry, e.g. any party is free to deploy their own 'reversible transaction' smart contract, giving payment consumers maximum choice * stronger guarantees of the integrity of transaction processing, with transparency into any tampering, given the code that executes the transactions, along with the transaction itself, is publicly auditible * debundling the provision of the different services that are required for transaction processing, by allowing transactions to be processed by immutably open smart contracts that no third party can later close off access to.