3 ms·

It is simply trust reduction/removal through distributed consensus. Any industry or application that depends on trust could be improved through use of blockchai

It is simply trust reduction/removal through distributed consensus. Any industry or application that depends on trust could be improved through use of blockchain for trust minimization. But just as easily as a knife can cut a slice of bread, it could be used to slice a jugular. In short, don't confuse the technology with the use cases. It's just a tool, some people will misuse it.

nosianu 4y ago
You don't minimize trust, you greatly increase the complexity of it. There's a lot more entities and processes involved and it becomes harder to understand. You need to trust quite a lot more things now, only that it's much harder, so many don't even try and just assume trusting many through some hard to understand and changing mechanism must be easier, which I don't quite see the logic of. As far as I can see - and when the blockchain hype started I made an effort and even took courses and did some programming with the new tech - many proposed benefits rely on them being hard to refute without quite a bit of effort for this reason, it's a lot of assertions that are hard to follow, to understand and to prove or disprove. The effort made for an assertion of some alleged benefit always is very low, but trying to disprove the claim without equally resorting to just making the statement is a lot of effort. I must say though I'm skeptical this discussion, especially with the stated question, is useful on this site and at this point, after it has already been discussed so many times, and now with that kind of question I doubt this leads to any better discussion than what we already had.
- syzygyhack 4y ago
  > There's a lot more entities Yes. That's decentralization. Rather than trusting one person irrevocably, you trust cryptographic security and the rational economics that emerge from alignment of incentive. Minimal trust in all other actors in the system, rather than maximum trust in one entity. > it becomes harder to understand Not really.. The general principles underlying blockchain are relatively simple. I'd agree that the finer implementation details can be complex, especially when it comes to consensus, sharding, or cryptography. But that varies between protocols. Do you have any examples of the assertions you find hard to follow?
  - nosianu 4y ago
    >> it becomes harder to understand > Not really.. Oh Yes! As usual in blockchain defense, you must make a lot of assertions. > Yes. That's decentralization. Please not that tone. You don't assume you need to teach me, I even did some programming when this was new to try out the new tech. The proponents always only ever have a lot of hot air and a lot of faith, but never anything real.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]

nosianu 4y ago

You don't minimize trust, you greatly increase the complexity of it. There's a lot more entities and processes involved and it becomes harder to understand. You need to trust quite a lot more things now, only that it's much harder, so many don't even try and just assume trusting many through some hard to understand and changing mechanism must be easier, which I don't quite see the logic of. As far as I can see - and when the blockchain hype started I made an effort and even took courses and did some programming with the new tech - many proposed benefits rely on them being hard to refute without quite a bit of effort for this reason, it's a lot of assertions that are hard to follow, to understand and to prove or disprove. The effort made for an assertion of some alleged benefit always is very low, but trying to disprove the claim without equally resorting to just making the statement is a lot of effort. I must say though I'm skeptical this discussion, especially with the stated question, is useful on this site and at this point, after it has already been discussed so many times, and now with that kind of question I doubt this leads to any better discussion than what we already had.

syzygyhack 4y ago
> There's a lot more entities Yes. That's decentralization. Rather than trusting one person irrevocably, you trust cryptographic security and the rational economics that emerge from alignment of incentive. Minimal trust in all other actors in the system, rather than maximum trust in one entity. > it becomes harder to understand Not really.. The general principles underlying blockchain are relatively simple. I'd agree that the finer implementation details can be complex, especially when it comes to consensus, sharding, or cryptography. But that varies between protocols. Do you have any examples of the assertions you find hard to follow?
- nosianu 4y ago
  >> it becomes harder to understand > Not really.. Oh Yes! As usual in blockchain defense, you must make a lot of assertions. > Yes. That's decentralization. Please not that tone. You don't assume you need to teach me, I even did some programming when this was new to try out the new tech. The proponents always only ever have a lot of hot air and a lot of faith, but never anything real.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]