4 ms·

If you want to share control of that data with me—and say that the data represents something valuable (or is itself valuable somehow) and we don’t really trust

If you want to share control of that data with me—and say that the data represents something valuable (or is itself valuable somehow) and we don’t really trust each other not to tamper with it—then the classic “single server hosting data on the internet” doesn’t really do the trick. If the number of people needing to collaborate is arbitrarily large, and includes people who don’t know each other and don’t trust each other, then the only option for storing and updating shared state in a tamperproof and durable way is to use a consensus-replicated blockchain.

411111111111111 5y ago
Or just use certificate signing.
- legutierr 5y ago
  It’s notable that all blockchain systems use cryptographic signatures to authenticate state transitions. But how do cryptographic signatures protect you from surreptitious deletions? On their own, they do not. They are a necessary, but insufficient part of the solution.
nicbou 5y ago
Does that happen a lot?
- legutierr 5y ago
  Does what happen a lot? People who might not know or trust each other needing to collaborate in updating and maintaining some kind of shared database? Yeah, it happens every day, everywhere, all the time. In fact, it is exactly what you and I are doing right now. In our case, though, we happen to trust Y Combinator to mediate our exchange. If our exchange were hosted on a blockchain, we wouldn't need to rely on Y Combinator to keep track of the upvotes and the downvotes, and to preserve our comments in their original form.
  - karmakurtisaani 5y ago
    We also rely on the mediator for moderating. Imagine the amount of spam if there was no trusted authority to moderate the database.
  - nicbou 5y ago
    I'm fine with trusting Ycombinator with this exchange. These interactions are not important enough to warrant a costly amendment to a permanent record. Can you provide examples where trustlessness is really necessary?

411111111111111 5y ago

Or just use certificate signing.

legutierr 5y ago
It’s notable that all blockchain systems use cryptographic signatures to authenticate state transitions. But how do cryptographic signatures protect you from surreptitious deletions? On their own, they do not. They are a necessary, but insufficient part of the solution.

nicbou 5y ago

Does that happen a lot?

legutierr 5y ago
Does what happen a lot? People who might not know or trust each other needing to collaborate in updating and maintaining some kind of shared database? Yeah, it happens every day, everywhere, all the time. In fact, it is exactly what you and I are doing right now. In our case, though, we happen to trust Y Combinator to mediate our exchange. If our exchange were hosted on a blockchain, we wouldn't need to rely on Y Combinator to keep track of the upvotes and the downvotes, and to preserve our comments in their original form.
- karmakurtisaani 5y ago
  We also rely on the mediator for moderating. Imagine the amount of spam if there was no trusted authority to moderate the database.
- nicbou 5y ago
  I'm fine with trusting Ycombinator with this exchange. These interactions are not important enough to warrant a costly amendment to a permanent record. Can you provide examples where trustlessness is really necessary?