3 ms·

It amounts to the same thing, really. Blockchains are structured so that you don't need to trust, you can verify. You follow the longest valid chain, and by "v

It amounts to the same thing, really. Blockchains are structured so that you don't need to trust, you can verify. You follow the longest valid chain, and by "valid" I mean that your node verifies every block and checks everything complies with the rules. For running code, it's the same thing. You can trust that your code won't be subverted by some rogue node because everyone else is double-checking those computations, and if a node breaks the rules its work will be rejected. > internet computer should be using the blockchain to manage computing resources that themselves also don't run on the blockchain. Not sure what's this supposed to mean. In general though blockchains are only effective within themselves. Any interaction with the outside hits the oracle problem -- you're trusting some outside source not to lie, so the blockchain doesn't really add anything.

em-bee 3y ago
the blockchain doesn't really add anything well, that is what i am trying to understand. for now i don't think that is right. it doesn't make sense to put everything directly on the chain. that would be to costly. not every computation needs to be trusted. i can still implement some checks to verify that computations are ok without the computation needing to run on the chain itself. but the chain can provide a mechanism to manage the resources (who gets to use how much and where, and who pays for it) which would be more difficult to do without a chain.
- dale_glass 3y ago
  No, the chain only has authority over itself. It's the same issue as with NFTs. Yes, you can store on the blockchain stuff like "User 0xabcdef owns the Godslayer of Hitpoints sword". And a game can look at the blockchain, and make use of that record. But absolutely nothing whatsoever stops it from deciding to stop caring, or replacing your fancy sword with a rubber duck, or deciding that screw this particular user, they're banned regardless of what the chain says. Also even to the extent this stuff works it's not nice to use. If the blockchain has you have some sort of resource (money, quota, etc), then if somebody ever gets their hands on your account they're now the rightful owner as far as the blockchain is concerned. So if per the chain you're owed say, 1 year worth of GPU time or something, that automatically becomes a self-paying bounty. Everyone can see it, and has an incentive to try and hack you.
  - em-bee 3y ago
    how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? sure it can be lost, so that's a different issue. if the chain itself is trusted and it says that, say a movie that has this signature is owned by this studio then noone can replace the movie or even steal it because they need the chain to access it. if the studio doesn't keep a copy of their movie and they loose it that's their own fault. same with NFTs. i think the idea is stupid, but i don't see the risks you are suggesting. to your last point, that's only an issue if you pay in advance, not if you pay after use. and stealing money on the blockchain is nothing new. that's of course a problem, but one that affects the whole ecosystem, so it will eventually have to be fixed. adding computing resources into the mix doesn't change anything. i am not really interested in discussing why something should or should not be done. because i do not know enough about how it actually works before i can argue about that. so i really first want to understand how it works so i can make up my own mind on whether it is a good idea or not.
    - dale_glass 3y ago
      > how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? It's very simple. You ignore the chain. The chain isn't magic, if it has any authority it's only because something else decides to consult the chain and to care about what can be found there. Any actual usefulness of the blockchain is limited to things that reside exclusively in the blockchain. Anything external, like some service that determines ownership of movies (not sure what scheme you're envisioning exactly) can arbitrarily decide to stop caring about the chain at any time, or to even selectively stop caring about parts of it.
      - em-bee 3y ago
        of course you can ignore the chain, but i already said that. if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain, then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature.

em-bee 3y ago

the blockchain doesn't really add anything well, that is what i am trying to understand. for now i don't think that is right. it doesn't make sense to put everything directly on the chain. that would be to costly. not every computation needs to be trusted. i can still implement some checks to verify that computations are ok without the computation needing to run on the chain itself. but the chain can provide a mechanism to manage the resources (who gets to use how much and where, and who pays for it) which would be more difficult to do without a chain.

dale_glass 3y ago
No, the chain only has authority over itself. It's the same issue as with NFTs. Yes, you can store on the blockchain stuff like "User 0xabcdef owns the Godslayer of Hitpoints sword". And a game can look at the blockchain, and make use of that record. But absolutely nothing whatsoever stops it from deciding to stop caring, or replacing your fancy sword with a rubber duck, or deciding that screw this particular user, they're banned regardless of what the chain says. Also even to the extent this stuff works it's not nice to use. If the blockchain has you have some sort of resource (money, quota, etc), then if somebody ever gets their hands on your account they're now the rightful owner as far as the blockchain is concerned. So if per the chain you're owed say, 1 year worth of GPU time or something, that automatically becomes a self-paying bounty. Everyone can see it, and has an incentive to try and hack you.
- em-bee 3y ago
  how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? sure it can be lost, so that's a different issue. if the chain itself is trusted and it says that, say a movie that has this signature is owned by this studio then noone can replace the movie or even steal it because they need the chain to access it. if the studio doesn't keep a copy of their movie and they loose it that's their own fault. same with NFTs. i think the idea is stupid, but i don't see the risks you are suggesting. to your last point, that's only an issue if you pay in advance, not if you pay after use. and stealing money on the blockchain is nothing new. that's of course a problem, but one that affects the whole ecosystem, so it will eventually have to be fixed. adding computing resources into the mix doesn't change anything. i am not really interested in discussing why something should or should not be done. because i do not know enough about how it actually works before i can argue about that. so i really first want to understand how it works so i can make up my own mind on whether it is a good idea or not.
  - dale_glass 3y ago
    > how could data off the chain be replaced if it is signed? It's very simple. You ignore the chain. The chain isn't magic, if it has any authority it's only because something else decides to consult the chain and to care about what can be found there. Any actual usefulness of the blockchain is limited to things that reside exclusively in the blockchain. Anything external, like some service that determines ownership of movies (not sure what scheme you're envisioning exactly) can arbitrarily decide to stop caring about the chain at any time, or to even selectively stop caring about parts of it.
    - em-bee 3y ago
      of course you can ignore the chain, but i already said that. if you have assets outside the chain you need to watch them yourself. but if the key to open that asset is on the chain, then even if you get a copy of the asset you can't do anything with it without using the chain. you can't replace it either because that would change the signature, and the owner can just reupload his original copy with the correct signature.