3 ms·

Serious question: What problems do you feel blockchains solves? Just non-governmental currency? I've found another use case that isn't blockchain for blockchain

Serious question: What problems do you feel blockchains solves? Just non-governmental currency? I've found another use case that isn't blockchain for blockchain's sake. Also, I don't follow Eth but are proof-of-stake pools prohibited? Can one address stake more than X (1?) Eth?

DennisP 4y ago
There are working pools on Ethereum's proof-of-stake. Each validator node is 32 ETH but the pool can run multiple validators, and give people a way to deposit smaller amounts.
Ajedi32 4y ago
What problem does Mastodon solve? Just non-Twitter shortform social networking? What about Diaspora, PeerTube, etc? Not being beholden to a central authority (whether that authority be Twitter, PayPal, or the US government) is intrinsically valuable to a lot of people. Blockchains are just a convenient and proven way of enabling that sort of independence. Granted, decentralization is a bit of a niche, and the cryptocurrency gold rush has made it way more mainstream than it has any right to be at this point in time given its drawbacks. But that doesn't mean it's not valuable. As for blockchain specifically: yes, decentralized payments seems to be the primary use case. But once you have a decentralized payments system, that enables the creation of a whole bunch of other decentralized applications that would not have otherwise been possible. That's why most "blockchain" projects start with a currency and then build from there: it's hard to build decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2][3] without first having a decentralized way to pay for those services. [1]: https://sia.tech/ https://sia.tech/ [2]: https://www.namecoin.org/ https://www.namecoin.org/ [3]: https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/
- namose 4y ago
  The problem is that most use-cases for blockchain require being beholden to a central authority anyway, because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and it’s either impossible or prohibitively inefficient to also run distributed applications that interact with the blockchain. I think anyone who’s trying to achieve trustlessness by introducing more complexity into software is running a fools’ errand. Make simple, auditable systems.
  - Ajedi32 4y ago
    Uh... no? What single, central authority are you beholden to when you transact using Bitcoin? "Lots of mining is centralized in large pools." or "lots of people choose to buy their Bitcoin through Coinbase" is not anywhere near the same level of dependence on a central authority as "PayPal can freeze my account at any time and I'm SOL". It's like claiming the internet is a centralized system because AWS exists.
    - namose 4y ago
      No, it’s like claiming the internet is centralized because google exists, except the alternative to things like coinbase is way more difficult to use than alternatives to big search engines. It’s a pretty valid argument
    - drekk 4y ago
      If most of the internet is on the AWS that is a pretty understandable argument, no? Mt. Gox was responsible for 70% of Bitcoin transactions at its peak. Most buy coins through exchanges, via fiat as an intermediary. They upload a driver's license which the intermediary keeps on file for KYC purposes. If Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general is supposed to decentralize finance how is it going to attain that goal if "doing it properly" requires installing a miner or exchanging cash for a flash drive in a Walmart parking lot? We're talking about the typical person globally whose conception of the internet might just be Facebook.
nerdjon 4y ago
This has been my question for a long time. Blockchain seems to have been introduced as a solution in search of a problem. Then it turned into a buzzword (I mean my dentist was talking to me about blockchain a week ago since she knows I am in tech) that is (was?) being applied to random things without being asked what are we solving for. The technology for blockchain is interesting, but there are so few actual use cases that a blockchain actually does anything useful and even those few use cases you need to make sure there is incentive for it to be distributed enough.

DennisP 4y ago

There are working pools on Ethereum's proof-of-stake. Each validator node is 32 ETH but the pool can run multiple validators, and give people a way to deposit smaller amounts.

Ajedi32 4y ago

What problem does Mastodon solve? Just non-Twitter shortform social networking? What about Diaspora, PeerTube, etc? Not being beholden to a central authority (whether that authority be Twitter, PayPal, or the US government) is intrinsically valuable to a lot of people. Blockchains are just a convenient and proven way of enabling that sort of independence. Granted, decentralization is a bit of a niche, and the cryptocurrency gold rush has made it way more mainstream than it has any right to be at this point in time given its drawbacks. But that doesn't mean it's not valuable. As for blockchain specifically: yes, decentralized payments seems to be the primary use case. But once you have a decentralized payments system, that enables the creation of a whole bunch of other decentralized applications that would not have otherwise been possible. That's why most "blockchain" projects start with a currency and then build from there: it's hard to build decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2][3] without first having a decentralized way to pay for those services. [1]: https://sia.tech/ https://sia.tech/ [2]: https://www.namecoin.org/ https://www.namecoin.org/ [3]: https://handshake.org/ https://handshake.org/

namose 4y ago
The problem is that most use-cases for blockchain require being beholden to a central authority anyway, because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and it’s either impossible or prohibitively inefficient to also run distributed applications that interact with the blockchain. I think anyone who’s trying to achieve trustlessness by introducing more complexity into software is running a fools’ errand. Make simple, auditable systems.
- Ajedi32 4y ago
  Uh... no? What single, central authority are you beholden to when you transact using Bitcoin? "Lots of mining is centralized in large pools." or "lots of people choose to buy their Bitcoin through Coinbase" is not anywhere near the same level of dependence on a central authority as "PayPal can freeze my account at any time and I'm SOL". It's like claiming the internet is a centralized system because AWS exists.
  - namose 4y ago
    No, it’s like claiming the internet is centralized because google exists, except the alternative to things like coinbase is way more difficult to use than alternatives to big search engines. It’s a pretty valid argument
  - drekk 4y ago
    If most of the internet is on the AWS that is a pretty understandable argument, no? Mt. Gox was responsible for 70% of Bitcoin transactions at its peak. Most buy coins through exchanges, via fiat as an intermediary. They upload a driver's license which the intermediary keeps on file for KYC purposes. If Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general is supposed to decentralize finance how is it going to attain that goal if "doing it properly" requires installing a miner or exchanging cash for a flash drive in a Walmart parking lot? We're talking about the typical person globally whose conception of the internet might just be Facebook.

nerdjon 4y ago

This has been my question for a long time. Blockchain seems to have been introduced as a solution in search of a problem. Then it turned into a buzzword (I mean my dentist was talking to me about blockchain a week ago since she knows I am in tech) that is (was?) being applied to random things without being asked what are we solving for. The technology for blockchain is interesting, but there are so few actual use cases that a blockchain actually does anything useful and even those few use cases you need to make sure there is incentive for it to be distributed enough.