Live data from Hacker News

The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

oii.ox.ac.uk

251–260 of 355 posts

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#251
post #223
post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume a blockchain has to consist of thousands of nodes? A private blockchain works equally well across those 5 geographically distributed nodes.

So why use blockchain? Whats the benefit? The only thing I can think of is proof of authentication attempts, a kind of a irrefutable log of some sort. But whats the benefit its providing, that we are lacking today?

That irrefutable log is highly valuable in environments where there is a need to audit who has requested access to what resources, and when.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the point though - for something like bitcoin, this tension is ok. It's when you start getting into things like blockchains for real estate in developing countries (I think there are a few startups working on this) when it becomes an issue. Someone still fundamentally needs to issue the blockchain deeds, or ok that you, in fact, own the property you are claiming to own. At that point, you have a centr…

Agreed, and it is a reason why I am holding back on Etherium so far. I don't know if they have a proposed solution to that, tbh, but it seems pretty impossible to solve. Although, to be fair, "classic" contracts also need that someone to enforce them. Maybe Etherium & the likes only replace one aspect of it, not the whole process. If company X publicly announces that they'll adhere to a certain contract in the blockc…

Haha, my issue with Ethereum has always been that, as a software engineer, I know it's impossible to write bug free code. It's a great idea to have a code driven contract utopia, but our first experiment with that model proved we still need human intervention. If it were that simple, we would just have hyper formalized real world contracts (in an almost mathematical notation) - but that obviously never happened. Frankly, hand written contracts are already incredibly decentralized, it's only enforcement that is centralized.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#253
This article pretty well sums up my overarching opinion that, at this point, bitcoin is the only actual killer app for blockchain. I'm always looking for the next kill app, but haven't seen it yet. With bitcoin, the idea of no governance or centralization is very much a feature, not a bug. When you get to other blockchain solutions (like stocks or real estate), blockchain just becomes a code word for immutable, public history, which is doable with many different technical means (not just a blockchain).

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#254
post #98

If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work... This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. For an industry that has constantly tried new things and saw potential where no one else did, I just don't see the love for the potential of smart contracts, DApps, etc. And how this is just the begin…

I could be wrong, buy I didn't read this as an indictment of bitcoin, but rather blockchain as a platform. I'm very pro bitcoin, but I see it as really the only killer app for blockchain at this point. Don't get me wrong, I'd love to see more, just haven't yet.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> First I'll say this isn't easy to answer in concrete terms. But someone will one day. This is not unreasonable, but you have to admit that it is a far cry from imminent revolution and a key reason why people are skeptical of this technology especially considering the bottomless pit of grandiose hype that accompanies it. > One concept would be to raise funds that can allow you arbitrage at a scalable level. Request…

Another idea: Etsy. Makers build things and post it to a Website and price it in some crypto currency. People buy it by sending money to a smart contract. A third party "oracle" is used to remit payment when the order is received. For instance the company that ships the product will signal delivery to the contract. The company that hosted the product takes a percent of the transaction payable after the final payment…

You literally just described Ebay/Paypal but with smart contracts. Worse, with the additional requirement that everyone has to use smart contracts for it to work at any level. Additionally, your example glosses over all of the real world problems, like seller/buyer fraud, that smart contracts and blockchains do nothing to address.

Smart contracts won't take off for the simple reason that they don't offer anything that existing processes don't already handle better than even the theoretical best case that smart contract proponents have offered.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The source of the distaste is obvious: breathless hyperbole without much substance to show for it. Posts like yours are a great example of it. In this very comment you write: > leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution Unsubstantiated hype. Where is the revolution? A common thread among cryptocurrency enthusiasts is that the revolution is coming... except it never does. When you talk abo…

> Where is the revolution? To me, the revolution is the realization that certain softwares don't need to be built, merely described and they will bring certain things into being. If Satoshi hadn't built Bitcoin, he had simply released the paper, I think Bitcoin would still exist today. That's interesting. I don't think the same is true, if, for example Mark Zuckerberg had just described Facebook rather than writing i…

Okay, except that's happened before. IIRC Cockroachdb is built off ideas described in the spanner paper. That's just one example.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#257
Here are some things you can do in Bitcoin today:

- Send any amount of money anywhere in the world. Fee is around $1 - Be your own bank. Your money cannot be frozen or seized - Use a service such as put.io or VPN without giving up your identity (pseudonymouysly) - Exchange Bitcoin for cash when traveling in countries such Thailand more cheaply than ATMs - Buy controlled substances, for medicinal or recreational use - Store any amount of money in your head, on a usb stick, or on paper. If price movements worry you, just hedge, a service offered by several companies - Bet on sports regardless of your geographic location

Sounds transformative to me.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#258
post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically just clone Etsy plus an escrow service. We already have those, so what. Where is the compelling customer benefit?

Not at all. The customer benefit is that because the business is run more efficiently things can be priced cheaper. This gets passed down to the consumer and producer. It's far more than escrow. It's a distributed business where many of the functions of the business are automated all enforced on the same blockchain. Could be crazy - I'm not pitching this! I'm sure many people have better grasps of the potential and i…

You must not have any experience on the operational side of a real business?

Everything you've described (i.e., payments) can already be handled by existing automated financial systems like ADP, Peoplesoft, Intuit, etc. Order status is already handled by existing invoicing systems (i.e., Square) and delivery providers (i.e., UPS). And all of these systems can be made to integrate with each other; plenty of businesses do that every year.

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#259

This article pretty well sums up my overarching opinion that, at this point, bitcoin is the only actual killer app for blockchain. I'm always looking for the next kill app, but haven't seen it yet. With bitcoin, the idea of no governance or centralization is very much a feature, not a bug. When you get to other blockchain solutions (like stocks or real estate), blockchain just becomes a code word for immutable, publi…

I think it makes a lot of sense to build a DNS system using contacts. Names can be auctioned off and given automatically to the highest bidder. It is also possible to set up a contract where you could trustlessly sell names. "Send $200 to an address and you will get the name". This solves the prisoners dilemma that is mentioned in the video at least for your dns addresses. There is an auction like this in progress already, and you can participate now if you like http://ens.domains

Re: The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy

#260

You can begin to see the beauty of Bitcoin when you want to accept payments. All you need to do is download a wallet, generate an address and put it online. You don't need anybody's permission, as would be the case with PayPal or the likes. The risk of somebody deciding on a whim to freeze your funds is also greatly diminished (again, very different from PayPal and the likes). "Governance" and "Accountability" seem t…

Your dismissal of the problem with forks is missing a big danger to users. You say that market forces will control it, and people should just use what works best for them.

The problem is that you might guess wrong; you might look at the two forks, make your best guess as to which side is going to win out via the network effect, and put your money there. If you are wrong, and your fork dies out, there goes all your money. The market forces did their thing, and they wiped you out.

Yes, the 'users' are the ones who decide how the system develops, but that doesn't mean you as an individual user have any say; your voice will be overwhelmed by the crowd.

Of course, these risks aren't any different from the risks we face in the rest of the world. You can lose money by making the wrong choices, and your choices often get forced because of the decision of the crowd. However, we don't really face that risk using a stable national currency BECAUSE of the very things bitcoin fans tout as reasons to use bitcoin.

The reason using a currency like the US dollar is so popular is BECAUSE of the fact that the government forces everyone to accept the currency 'for all debts, public and private'. People are FORCED to accept the currency, so you can have confidence that you aren't going to be left with useless money if you accept dollars in payment. You don't have to worry about some other currency winning out as the defacto payment system, and losing all your wealth.

Of course, you have to put faith in the US government to maintain the currency, but it has a pretty strong track record of doing a fairly good job at that. I can't imagine a cryptocurrency every being able to be as stable as the dollar for hundreds of years; I mean, just look at the price volatility for bitcoins.

Post reply on HN