3 ms·
Because blockchain solutions to anything are almost always awful. (And I'm unsure about needing the word "almost".)
by billpg 4y ago
Because blockchain solutions to anything are almost always awful. (And I'm unsure about needing the word "almost".)
- FateOfNations 4y agoI always replace "blockchain" with "distributed ledger" and see if the idea still make any kind of sense (it rarely does).
- White_Wolf 4y agoAwful? Ignoring the crypto coins, I'd love to see all spending/funds in for governments, ONG, non-profit orgs, (mass)media channels, public hospitals, all companies that have shareholders/sell shares, anything that runs on public funds and so on should be tracked via publicly available blockchains. You can probably see where I'm going with this. I have mixed feelings about banks, national banks, lenders, art trading, casinos, pawn shops and such though. I'm a bit worried about tracking private individuals at that extent because of these.
- billpg 4y agoYou can do that without a blockchain. Have all those orgs publish their accounts in a form that allows for anyone to make copies and to audit that the published versions don't get modified over time.
- dbbk 4y agoNothing about this requires the blockchain though. It's additional complexity for no gain.