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

51–60 of 337 posts

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#51

Post by rrecuero »

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…

Scalability and adoption are moving targets. People were saying the same thing of the internet in the early days.

Check SALT, millions in loans already distributed https://www.saltlending.com/

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#52

Post by rrecuero »

spookthesunset wrote: post #47
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-...

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.

The main benefit of blockchain is that it is trustless and censorship-resistant. You don't need to trust any business entities. You can transact with someone in a zero trust environment on the other side of the world

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#53

Post by rrecuero »

0x4f3759df wrote: post #18
CPLX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I feel like you are moving the goalpost. edit: If UPS doesn't count then nothing is going to count.

Exactly, scalability is a moving target. You can't expect to match VISA transactions the first day

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#54

Post by rrecuero »

bitoneill wrote: post #39
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…

Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...

Fundraising: Ethereum ICOs Store of Value: Bitcoin Loans: SALT ....

This is just the beginning

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#55

Post by rrecuero »

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…

We were talking specifically about protocols like TCP, IP, DNS or even P2P. It was nearly impossible to monetize protocol level work before cryptocurrencies

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#56

Post by EricDeb »

So far the main benefit is democratizing investment, as has been stated here before. I love that I can get in on early stage projects without being a well-connected angel investor. Coins are like new, sexier penny stocks.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#57

Post by albertgoeswoof »

Jasper_ wrote: post #42
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 re…

You can solve this by using multiple oracles and a stake-based consensus algorithm to de-incentivize malicious reporting.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#58

Post by the_stc »

TheDong wrote: post #41
woah wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This. At my company, we want a way to show investors our actual revenue numbers in an auditable manner, trustless. This is because we are extrajurisdictional and have high opsec concerns and cannot simply hire an accounting firm to give us an OK.

Hence we shall issue signed receipts to all clients and providers then setup a system to pay out a large bounty if someone can produce a signed receipt not in our weekly-published-log. We'll automate the bounty, but perhaps a third party will also offer a validator. We will not even need Postgres for it, just nginx and a filesystem.

But that is not interesting enough by itself, and mentioning digital signatures just confuses people more. So we call it a Single-Issuer-Blockchain: Now people instantly get the idea.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#60

Post by goodroot »

amarkov wrote: post #50
goodroot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

When authority is centralized, it's akin to full control. Decentralization fragments control across many, many different parties, who in consensus have authority.

If the transaction is on an immutable public record, the authority couldn't say: "Well, no you didn't pay us. Pay us again, or we'll steal your dog."

If you live somewhere where Government/Corporation are out of control, this sort of safe guard has major benefit.

Post reply on HN