The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
1–10 of 79 posts
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#2This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service.
Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unified historical record of all transactions for people to keep giving them business. Otherwise, users will choose different validators and carry on without them.
Blockchains are fancy spools of receipt paper. If the printer gets jammed, tear off the stuff you care about and staple it to a new spool. The printer doesn't control the people. The people employ the printer.
With that said, it's still unclear whether blockchains are the right choice for publishing. A decentralized Twitter doesn't need consensus on a historical record. An IPFS-based Twitter is probably a better way to start, then anchor the parts that need consensus on a blockchain, like usernames and timestamps.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#3This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
Your last point is important-- I think too many people in the distributed systems / decentralization community rush to block chain as the one hammer to pound every nail. It's not. It's a solution to a very specific set of consensus problems but outside that it's not the best thing.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#4i'm not a fan of "blockchain for everything", but stating that a distributed system is a danger for distribution, and favoring a decentralized, federated approach instead sounds like plainly wrong.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#5This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
What part isn't true, specifically? We are dependent on blockchain miners, because without them our transactions don't get accepted. Moreover we have a couple established big players that control the market and no clear way for them to get disrupted, save abandoning Bitcoin entirely.
Blockchains are much more than receipt paper. Receipt paper is a superfluous byproduct. The blockchain is the system of record.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#6This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
> Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners.
How is proof-of-work's dependence on miners an illusion? Seems like a fundamental property of proof-of-work that it depends solely on the consensus of miners.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#7"The" blockchain = one subset of potential uses of Ethereum ?
Did someone take some time to tell author that internet is not www, and that www is not maintaining datacenters ?
I'm surprised that some people find this article informative.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#8This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
What part isn't true, specifically? We are dependent on blockchain miners, because without them our transactions don't get accepted. Moreover we have a couple established big players that control the market and no clear way for them to get disrupted, save abandoning Bitcoin entirely. Blockchains are much more than receipt paper. Receipt paper is a superfluous byproduct. The blockchain is the system of record.
This is untrue: "Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users."
If a blockchain has rules that don't meet my needs, I can choose a different blockchain. If I adopt a blockchain that changes its rules to be undesirable, I can take the history I care about and move it to another blockchain.
This argument depends on proof-of-stake. Some people think proof-of-work blockchains are the only useful ones, but I disagree. It's also a boring debate to have, so I won't be doing that here.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#9This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
> Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. How is proof-of-work's dependence on miners an illusion? Seems like a fundamental property of proof-of-work that it depends solely on the consensus of miners.
Miners only mine to gain more bitcoins. The market determines what bitcoins are. The market can decide to treat a different historical record with different rules as the ledger for bitcoins. This is much easier in proof-of-stake systems. You can't destroy a bad miner's mining equipment, but you can destroy a bad validator's deposit, which removes them from the system.
Re: The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet
#10This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service. Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the best job of maintaining a unifie…
> but a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated service
...and a federated service is better than a handful of silos controlling the network.
So if the blockchain is supported by the mining of many small miners, it's a decentralized dream. But if there are a handful of miners validating the majority of transactions, then it ends up smelling a lot like the handful of silos situation. Not exactly the same but very similar.