Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building for the Blockchain

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 337 posts

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#41

Post by TheDong »

woah wrote: post #26
arkona wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A distributed, append-only cryptographic ledger Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t that what a blockchain is?

I agree that blockchain is overhyped right now, but I don't understand the common sentiment on HN that "you don't need a blockchain, just an append-only decentralized database with Merkel root logs", as if that's something easy to build. What is this hypothetical non-blockchain, where are you going to get it, and why not just use a blockchain if that's what you need?

Let's look at another project that needed a such a ledger: the certificate transparency project.

One implementation of it, google's, uses leveldb:

https://github.com/google/certificate-transparency

Another one out there uses postgres. It turns out that you can use traditional databases in many cases where you think you need a blockchain, and you'll be able to waste vastly less energy on proof-of-work and vastly less time dealing with the terrible mess that is "blockchain".

The reason not to use "blockchain" is that it has 200 definitions, all of them full of people trying to get rich, not getting things done.

Databases have long-since solved the problem of storing and distributing data.

Distributed stores like etcd, zookeeper, and so on have long since solved the problem of duplicating data.

Very few people need byzentine fault tolerance (due to having a large number of untrusted actors with write access), which is the only time the additional complexity blockchain includes is actually useful

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#42

Post by Jasper_ »

goodroot wrote: post #3

> For one, Ethereum is unable to access real time data from outside the blockchain. Developers need to rely on trusted third party data providers, called oracles, to provide smart contracts with outside information like weather, random numbers, or currency values. I feel like this is more of a feature than a bug. If you're weaving applications into the blockchain, would it really be wise to have that chain communicat…

What I don't understand is how Ethereum can describe their dapps as "trustless" when all the trust is still centralized in an oracle. This can even happen accidentally, such as with the Mayweather/McGregor smart contract breakage. [0]

But now imagine if BoxRec had intentionally reported false results from their website in order to make a lot of money on the bet. People would lose their money, and there would be no recourse.

[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/ethtrader/comments/6w5wcn/important...

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#43

Post by 45h34jh53k4j »

Ethereum isn't useful for smart contracts; they are too expensive to call methods on chain and EVM is too inflexible and bug prone.

The only use for ethereum is shittokens, and you could practically coingen these for free, and trade forever. No load on the shared commons, isolate activity to the specific coin. The only advantage is the ECR20 standard that aids exchange integration.

SV is all a blaze about Ethereum, but I tell you, this too shall pass.

Long on other smart contract platforms, but not ETH.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#44

Post by DennisP »

CPLX wrote: post #16
0x4f3759df wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why use a blockchain instead of a database? Because multiple organizations are involved and each wants to control the database. If a thing moves across multiple organizations then you can make a case for a blockchain application, logistics is an obvious example, but there are others like asset (expensive paintings / vintage wine) provenance. https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/ups-bets-on-blockchain-as-...

Sure. But this has been going on for awhile, what's the example of someone actually doing any of these things in a way that creates real efficiency?

That won't happen in a substantial way until scaling issues are fixed. On Ethereum, there are at least half a dozen projects that tackle different aspects of the problem. The first phase of sharding, for example, should be good for a 100X improvement; there's a published spec, a testnet is on the way, and it can be rolled out without a fork, so there's a good chance it'll happen this year.

Some other chains are working the problem in their own ways, I'm just less familiar with them.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#45

Post by vincentschen »

goodroot wrote: post #3

> For one, Ethereum is unable to access real time data from outside the blockchain. Developers need to rely on trusted third party data providers, called oracles, to provide smart contracts with outside information like weather, random numbers, or currency values. I feel like this is more of a feature than a bug. If you're weaving applications into the blockchain, would it really be wise to have that chain communicat…

Yes, the lack of outside access isn't necessarily a bug, but it can be a development hurdle!

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#46

Post by Fradow »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #8
api wrote: post #2

Yet so far I still see almost nothing on the block chain (beyond its core currency use case) that is useful outside the domain of block chain stuff. The only exception is things like Sia, and that's not cost or convenience competitive with Amazon S3 or Backblaze. Where is the value here? When I visited this I was expecting to see at least something about building something useful for... something... Building what for…

> Whatever value has been delivered seems extremely minor compared to the vast sums of money being spent, making this perhaps the worst ROI I've ever seen. What's even worse, from my POV, is the humongous amount of electricity that is used to support the blockchain. And to what end? Personally, I won't start believing in the blockchain until a non-wasteful alternative to the present PoW scheme gets developed and actu…

Proof of Stake (PoS) and Proof of Capacity (PoC) exist and are actually deployed for quite a while now. They don't consume lots of electricity and can be runned on cheap hardware.

I run 2 PoS wallets on one of my computers. It doesn't affect it much, though not all coins are equal (some consume more resources). It just have to stay on.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#47

Post by spookthesunset »

0x4f3759df wrote: post #10
api wrote: post #2

Yet so far I still see almost nothing on the block chain (beyond its core currency use case) that is useful outside the domain of block chain stuff. The only exception is things like Sia, and that's not cost or convenience competitive with Amazon S3 or Backblaze. Where is the value here? When I visited this I was expecting to see at least something about building something useful for... something... Building what for…

Why use a blockchain instead of a database? Because multiple organizations are involved and each wants to control the database. If a thing moves across multiple organizations then you can make a case for a blockchain application, logistics is an obvious example, but there are others like asset (expensive paintings / vintage wine) provenance. https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/15/ups-bets-on-blockchain-as-...

This is a solved problem. All interested parties form an independent business entity and assign ownership to that.

All problems related to inter-company collaboration are people and organizational problems not technical problems. Blockchain solves nothing in this space.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#48

Post by Jasper_ »

TheDong wrote: post #36
arkona wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A distributed, append-only cryptographic ledger Pardon my ignorance, but isn’t that what a blockchain is?

No, that's what a write-ahead-log is, or quite a few various databases, or a git branch are. The key innovation of the blockchain was the use of proof-of-work in order to associate an amount of computer-time with a given block, and then pick, from competing views of a blockchain, which view took the most energy to arrive at... all while being resistant to a small number of subversive actors. In short, the blockchain…

Proof of Work doesn't determine which view took the most energy to arrive at. What it does is give a self-adjusting brute force cracking problem that takes 10 real-world minutes to perform, regardless of the amount of energy put in. The assumption is that 10 minutes is enough for even the slowest links of the network to get an up-to-view of the world, preventing double-spends or similar issues.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#49

Post by ArchReaper »

thisisit wrote: post #29

I stopped after reading this: > “Historically the only way to make money from a protocol was to create software that implemented it and then try to sell this software (or more recently to host it)… With [cryptographic] tokens, however, the creators of a protocol can ‘monetize’ it directly and will in fact benefit more as others build businesses on top of that protocol.” And what was wrong with developers finding a ma…

They didn't say anything was wrong with that, they said it used to be the only option. Now there's other options.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#50

Post by amarkov »

goodroot wrote: post #40
api wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is paying for electricity with Ethereum better for me than paying with a card? I don't see the advantage. When VisiCalc was demo'ed there were people lined up literally pulling out their checkbooks and offering to pay almost limitless amounts of money for the prototype. Spreadsheets had insane value to accountants. Other than the core use case of currency that I mentioned, where are the "killer apps" for block ch…

The big feature of the car example comes within the third paragraph. It's decentralized. The node, the charging station, doesn't need to phone home or synchronize with a central authority in order to process the payment. It can write and fulfill the contract. It may be the case that the fundamental, key, killer features of the blockchain have lost their initial lustre to many people, and I understand that. But decent…

Why is it worse to phone home and synchronize with a central authority than to phone home and synchronize with a blockchain?
Post reply on HN