5 ms·

Seems like they started with ‘How can I apply a blockchain to the problem?’ instead of ‘What is the best way to solve this problem?’. It’s easy to do, focusing

by mnd999 5y ago

Seems like they started with ‘How can I apply a blockchain to the problem?’ instead of ‘What is the best way to solve this problem?’. It’s easy to do, focusing on the interesting tech instead of the actual business problem.

l33t2328 5y ago
I don’t even think blockchain counts as interesting tech. Hash functions are old.
- SuchAnonMuchWow 5y ago
  hash functions are not what is new with blockchains: its the distributed zero-trust consensus algorithms.
  - c0mptonFP 5y ago
    That's what technical crypto skeptics always do, it's one of the most common reductionist comments you can find on technical forums: - Blockchain is just an inefficient linked list/database - Merkle Trees have existed since the 70s - Distributed systems have existed since the 80s - ZK proofs have existed since the 80s Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus. Usually they throw in a reference to some other unrelated consensus algorithm like Paxos or Raft to seem smart. And if you attempt to highlight some advances in the DLT space, you will be accused of "spouting buzzwords". There's literally no way to communicate with a person who has already decided they don't care.
    - mnd999 5y ago
      Have you considered the possibility that the reason you’re not convincing people is that you’ve just got it wrong?
      - c0mptonFP 5y ago
        If I was wrong they could just give me a sound argument instead of directing insults at me and throwing "witty" reductionist jabs. Do you think that argument structure is sound? By that logic quantum computing is a scam, because quantum theory has existed for a century.
      - everfree 5y ago
        My experience has been the same as c0mptonFP. For every thoughtful and educated comment I receive about blockchain technology, I get more than twenty that either make very basic mistakes in understanding the current state of it, take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless, and/or repeat tired tropes that apply only to the specific design of Bitcoin or have otherwise been overcome by the technology's progression over the last decade (e.g. energy usage, scaling, the oracle problem). Because money is involved, everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on it, even people who have no background in blockchain system design. As a consequence, informed discussions about this technology seem to be a real rarity.
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        >take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless Because it is actually useless. I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved in some particularly obscure fashion is a net loss for everyone involved, including you.
        everfree 5y ago
    - bertman 5y ago
      >who has already decided they don't care Hm, I think it's not because people don't care, but rather because "blockchain" is (for many people) inextricably linked to shady fintech assholes that actually don't care about interesting technical concepts and intricacies behind DLT.
      - c0mptonFP 5y ago
        For the record, I have met with bank directors, managers for portfolios and asset management, etc. These people are probably the most condescending, obnoxious, ignorant douchebags that I have ever met in my entire life. My confidence in DeFi shot up tenfold after meeting these people
        throwaway82652 5y ago
        It doesn't really make sense to put your confidence in something questionable because something else happens to be bad. I get that you probably have a better explanation but this comment isn't explaining it and instead is just taking an opportunity to dunk on people, if you want to have serious discussions don't make any more comments like this. If you really want to improve communication then please do your part to communicate better.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    - alexnewman 5y ago
      You had me until you described paxos and raft as untested.
      - c0mptonFP 5y ago
        > until you described paxos and raft as untested I said unrelated, not untested. Raft is not an adversarial protocol, it doesn't share the same threat model as blockchains. They fulfil entirely different purposes.
    - throwaway82652 5y ago
      >Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus Because those advances exist in spite of blockchains. I wish blockchains were a useful technology, but they actually aren't. I've seen zero advances in distributed ledgers that are actually helped by blockchains. The use of a blockchain strictly makes it worse. And even past that I've seen very, very few situations where the whole idea of a distributed ledger even makes sense to begin with. If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care, don't waste time going on about merkle trees and consensus algorithms and getting sucked into the same reductionist trap of singling out some minor technical details.
      - c0mptonFP 4y ago
        > If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care I purposely didn't, because then I'm committed to defending dozens of attacks. I already do a lot to educate people on DLTs on several platforms. I'm not gonna turn HN discussions into my full-time job. If you don't like it, you can fuck off.
        rvz 4y ago
        I bet that you will see the same extreme anti-crypto regulars screaming and crying on yet another blockchain, crypto related post on HN again. They won't go away that easily. They are really waiting for the next crypto scam / Defi hack or Ask HN about blockchains or crypto to be posted before doing so and it's very predictable. Anything about posts like this [0], you won't see them. [0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto
  - baby 5y ago
    It’s more than that if you want to include consensusless algorithms (see Sui)
amluto 5y ago
They seem to have started there and gone nowhere. This whole document is essentially devoid of content. To be fair, blockchain-like technologies can be extremely useful for improving Internet security. See, for example, certificate transparency. (But note that CT does not involve mining and barely involves consensus. I could imagine requiring something like CT for BGP routes, but I could also imagine it going horribly wrong in the event of a need to recover from failure.)

by mnd999 5y ago

l33t2328 5y ago

I don’t even think blockchain counts as interesting tech. Hash functions are old.

SuchAnonMuchWow 5y ago
hash functions are not what is new with blockchains: its the distributed zero-trust consensus algorithms.
- c0mptonFP 5y ago
  That's what technical crypto skeptics always do, it's one of the most common reductionist comments you can find on technical forums: - Blockchain is just an inefficient linked list/database - Merkle Trees have existed since the 70s - Distributed systems have existed since the 80s - ZK proofs have existed since the 80s Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus. Usually they throw in a reference to some other unrelated consensus algorithm like Paxos or Raft to seem smart. And if you attempt to highlight some advances in the DLT space, you will be accused of "spouting buzzwords". There's literally no way to communicate with a person who has already decided they don't care.
  - mnd999 5y ago
    Have you considered the possibility that the reason you’re not convincing people is that you’ve just got it wrong?
    - c0mptonFP 5y ago
      If I was wrong they could just give me a sound argument instead of directing insults at me and throwing "witty" reductionist jabs. Do you think that argument structure is sound? By that logic quantum computing is a scam, because quantum theory has existed for a century.
    - everfree 5y ago
      My experience has been the same as c0mptonFP. For every thoughtful and educated comment I receive about blockchain technology, I get more than twenty that either make very basic mistakes in understanding the current state of it, take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless, and/or repeat tired tropes that apply only to the specific design of Bitcoin or have otherwise been overcome by the technology's progression over the last decade (e.g. energy usage, scaling, the oracle problem). Because money is involved, everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on it, even people who have no background in blockchain system design. As a consequence, informed discussions about this technology seem to be a real rarity.
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        >take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless Because it is actually useless. I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved in some particularly obscure fashion is a net loss for everyone involved, including you.
        everfree 5y ago
  - bertman 5y ago
    >who has already decided they don't care Hm, I think it's not because people don't care, but rather because "blockchain" is (for many people) inextricably linked to shady fintech assholes that actually don't care about interesting technical concepts and intricacies behind DLT.
    - c0mptonFP 5y ago
      For the record, I have met with bank directors, managers for portfolios and asset management, etc. These people are probably the most condescending, obnoxious, ignorant douchebags that I have ever met in my entire life. My confidence in DeFi shot up tenfold after meeting these people
      - throwaway82652 5y ago
        It doesn't really make sense to put your confidence in something questionable because something else happens to be bad. I get that you probably have a better explanation but this comment isn't explaining it and instead is just taking an opportunity to dunk on people, if you want to have serious discussions don't make any more comments like this. If you really want to improve communication then please do your part to communicate better.
        deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
  - alexnewman 5y ago
    You had me until you described paxos and raft as untested.
    - c0mptonFP 5y ago
      > until you described paxos and raft as untested I said unrelated, not untested. Raft is not an adversarial protocol, it doesn't share the same threat model as blockchains. They fulfil entirely different purposes.
  - throwaway82652 5y ago
    >Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus Because those advances exist in spite of blockchains. I wish blockchains were a useful technology, but they actually aren't. I've seen zero advances in distributed ledgers that are actually helped by blockchains. The use of a blockchain strictly makes it worse. And even past that I've seen very, very few situations where the whole idea of a distributed ledger even makes sense to begin with. If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care, don't waste time going on about merkle trees and consensus algorithms and getting sucked into the same reductionist trap of singling out some minor technical details.
    - c0mptonFP 4y ago
      > If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care I purposely didn't, because then I'm committed to defending dozens of attacks. I already do a lot to educate people on DLTs on several platforms. I'm not gonna turn HN discussions into my full-time job. If you don't like it, you can fuck off.
      - rvz 4y ago
        I bet that you will see the same extreme anti-crypto regulars screaming and crying on yet another blockchain, crypto related post on HN again. They won't go away that easily. They are really waiting for the next crypto scam / Defi hack or Ask HN about blockchains or crypto to be posted before doing so and it's very predictable. Anything about posts like this [0], you won't see them. [0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto
- baby 5y ago
  It’s more than that if you want to include consensusless algorithms (see Sui)

amluto 5y ago

They seem to have started there and gone nowhere. This whole document is essentially devoid of content. To be fair, blockchain-like technologies can be extremely useful for improving Internet security. See, for example, certificate transparency. (But note that CT does not involve mining and barely involves consensus. I could imagine requiring something like CT for BGP routes, but I could also imagine it going horribly wrong in the event of a need to recover from failure.)