3 ms·

This is not a problem anyone has ever had. The entire world is running on either no coordinated mutations, or batched mutations that are spreading over time. If

This is not a problem anyone has ever had. The entire world is running on either no coordinated mutations, or batched mutations that are spreading over time. If you're found not respecting the mutations that my Apache server has done, the only thing that happens is that you get banned or fined. Cryptobros see the world as absolutely unable of trust, when it's ran for millenia on it.

abiro 5y ago
If you’re running Postgres you have this problem and you gave it a centralized solution.
- lpcvoid 5y ago
  I can run Postgres with no cryptobro crap required. Huge advantage. If people don't want to trust my instance, then we can start signing blobs so my instance only shovels dumb data around that anybody can verify being authentic. If relationships are required to be verifiable, we can build a PKI.
  - abiro 5y ago
    If you could build PKI in a decentralized, privacy preserving manner for all internet users that’d be huge. So far no-one succeeded.
legutierr 5y ago
> The entire world is running on either no coordinated mutations, or batched mutations that are spreading over time. Every financial transaction that requires settlement between institutions is a “coordinated mutation.” And while it is true that financial transactions are often synced between institutions via a “batched mutation” approach (especially when coordinating settlement), the delay that batched settlement represents, and the complexity that it introduces to the overall system, is extremely costly. This is one reason why blockchains have the potential to be extremely valuable—both from a utilitarian point of view as well as from a financial point of view. Imagine if you could get rid of batched settlement between institutions, because you just didn’t need to do it anymore. What would that be worth?
- falcolas 5y ago
  > the delay that batched settlement represents Bitcoin transactions can take anywhere from 10 minutes to upwards of 16 hours for minuscule volumes of transactions. It's not solving that problem for certain. > extremely costly The cost is built into the transactions. Just like it is with blockchain transactions. Now then, which has higher per transaction costs?
  - legutierr 5y ago
    Assessing the future prospects of blockchain technology based on the performance characteristics of Bitcoin is like assessing of the future prospects of general computation based on the performance characteristics of the UNIVAC III. As a factual matter, settlement costs are not fully embodied by transaction fees, and include such things as, for instance, financing and opportunity costs and the cost of supporting an organization that is more complex than it otherwise needs to be. If settlement delays were entirely eliminated, new business models would emerge that are not even possible under the current regime.

abiro 5y ago

If you’re running Postgres you have this problem and you gave it a centralized solution.

lpcvoid 5y ago
I can run Postgres with no cryptobro crap required. Huge advantage. If people don't want to trust my instance, then we can start signing blobs so my instance only shovels dumb data around that anybody can verify being authentic. If relationships are required to be verifiable, we can build a PKI.
- abiro 5y ago
  If you could build PKI in a decentralized, privacy preserving manner for all internet users that’d be huge. So far no-one succeeded.

legutierr 5y ago

> The entire world is running on either no coordinated mutations, or batched mutations that are spreading over time. Every financial transaction that requires settlement between institutions is a “coordinated mutation.” And while it is true that financial transactions are often synced between institutions via a “batched mutation” approach (especially when coordinating settlement), the delay that batched settlement represents, and the complexity that it introduces to the overall system, is extremely costly. This is one reason why blockchains have the potential to be extremely valuable—both from a utilitarian point of view as well as from a financial point of view. Imagine if you could get rid of batched settlement between institutions, because you just didn’t need to do it anymore. What would that be worth?

falcolas 5y ago
> the delay that batched settlement represents Bitcoin transactions can take anywhere from 10 minutes to upwards of 16 hours for minuscule volumes of transactions. It's not solving that problem for certain. > extremely costly The cost is built into the transactions. Just like it is with blockchain transactions. Now then, which has higher per transaction costs?
- legutierr 5y ago
  Assessing the future prospects of blockchain technology based on the performance characteristics of Bitcoin is like assessing of the future prospects of general computation based on the performance characteristics of the UNIVAC III. As a factual matter, settlement costs are not fully embodied by transaction fees, and include such things as, for instance, financing and opportunity costs and the cost of supporting an organization that is more complex than it otherwise needs to be. If settlement delays were entirely eliminated, new business models would emerge that are not even possible under the current regime.