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

Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 487 posts

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#71

Post by stephen_g »

onion-soup wrote: post #9
rambossa wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My major questions have always been: where is the business value in blockchain applications? what can a blockchain app do that can't be done by non-blockchain (beyond decentralization - bc I don't think this produces much business value)?

Sending money without fees and delay? Have you ever tried a normal bank transfer? How long did it take? Have you ever tried, say, nano? It literally takes seconds and 0 fees. Here is some value.

Yeah, in Australia it's currently overnight between banks (but generally instant from one account to another within a bank), and they're bringing out a new real-time payments platform over the next few months so you will be able to transfer instantly to anybody knowing only their 'pay ID', which can be a mobile number, Australian Business Number (ABN), etc.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#72

Post by mirekrusin »

hudon wrote: post #45
nwah1 wrote: post #7

It is interesting that even in an article like this that they still say things like "for all its potential, blockchain is still in its early days." It is sticking with the unfounded assumption that it will be a success in the future, if only it is given more time. In technological terms, it is old. Innumerable efforts have been attempted, yielding almost no fruit. At what point are the fundamental assumptions going t…

I think the fundamental assumption is that "Satoshi invented a useful solution to decentralized consensus". What people don't realize is that Satoshi's solution only works if two assumptions hold true: 1. Mining is decentralized: If mining is centralized than relying on proof-of-work for consensus is waste since the centralized entity controls the blockchain anyway. 2. Consensus rules don't change: If you see the thr…

PoW is just one of available consensus algorithms. Blockchain doesn’t imply decentralised consensus, you can run it on paxos, raft, authority round or something else, especially for internal, private or semi-private networks. What you get is trail log with proofs that’s immutable and strongly protected against temper.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#73

Post by darawk »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #50
barnabee wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's younger than most technology is when it becomes successful. Much younger when you realise you think about the age of the concepts, designs, algorithms, etc. that eventually become successful rather than a specific attempt at implementation.

Imagine if a bunch of investors walked into the Homebrew Computing Club [1] in 1976 and offered to buy anything and everything its members made for $1 million. With the benefit of hindsight, blockchain is the story of a neat database technology trashing its near-term prospects by marketing itself as a currency. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homebrew_Computer_Club

Blockchain is a shit database concept. It's use as a currency is one of its best uses. This idea that blockchains are a good database is an absurd myth. Blockchains are useful specifically for doing distributed consensus, and almost nothing else. Currencies are one of the best applications of distributed adversarial consensus. There are others, but currency is pretty near the top of the list.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#74

Post by haakon »

cvaidya1986 wrote: post #25

Ron Conway, early investor in the internet, said recently that the Blockchain is internet 3.0

I mostly hear it described as Internet 2.0, or Web 3.0. However, analysts are starting to talk about Blockchain 2.0 now; this could probably fill the role of Internet 3.0.

None of these people have any idea what they're talking about.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#75

Post by bringtheaction »

mkirklions wrote: post #61
akerro wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have 1 Bitcoin therefore blockchain will succeed.

Bitcoin needs blockchain to verify that a bitcoin is authentic. I have no idea why a company would use blockchain for logistics or file storage considering how its massively expensive to constantly pay miners for transactions. My centralized server can do everything needed for logistics or file storage. Benefits of blockchain are overblown. There are uses, but centralized servers are really good.

You can have a blockchain without miners. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof-of-stake

Now I agree that a lot of ideas for how blockchain will be used are just unnecessary and stupid, but there are some good ones as well.

You mentioned file storage but actually I think blockchain could be useful for this. Allow me to elaborate.

I don’t want to rely on Dropbox or Google or any other single company for the long-term storageof my data. And I don’t want to accidentally upload unencrypted data. And I don’t want a single company to decide what platforms they will support.

I want an open protocol and a nice open source client. Different people have different wishes. For me that would be far more attractive than the centralized storage you are suggesting, because it’s not just about the servers and the storage it’s also about the people and the software ecosystem around it.

And besides, if I gave like hundreds of GB of data to one company then they could easily start charging me more in the future and I might not be able to do much about it. With a distributed system I think there is a better chance that competition might drive prices down more.

And that’s just one kind of use-case. There are more as well.

I think blockchain in general is cool and also I like projects that aim to make worldwide payment be really fast and cheap and for the banks to hold less power over my money.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#76

Post by seanalltogether »

arisAlexis wrote: post #30
seanalltogether wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a definitive source of trust (ie. the government) then a blockchain is a very inefficient mechanism for distribution.

yes very little corruption in governments worldwide and records are never counterfeited. I agree

Are you suggesting governments (corrupt or not) would consider handing over the signing authority for legal processes to external anonymous parties?

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#77

Post by smileysteve »

arisAlexis wrote: post #30
seanalltogether wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If there is a definitive source of trust (ie. the government) then a blockchain is a very inefficient mechanism for distribution.

yes very little corruption in governments worldwide and records are never counterfeited. I agree

Git provides centralized version tracking that can be cloned easily -- no miners required. And authenticity, while not truly unique is likely unique enough.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#78

Post by RyanShook »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #51
this_user wrote: post #22

What does "blockchain" even mean in this generalised context? When we are talking about crypto currencies, it is a distributed database with a consensus mechanism that is extremely costly to run. But this is not something you would need or want in most other situations, because there is always some degree of trust with your counterparties (and legal recourse if necessary). If we strip away the consensus mechanism, al…

Blockchain is simply a sexy term for a distributed ledger, which has its place in a limited set of use cases.

The question that no one bothers to ask is, "What problem is this technology solving that can't be solved cheaper and just as effectively with 'traditional' technology?" When you look at it this way I think the realistic use cases go way down.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#79

Post by hudon »

mirekrusin wrote: post #72
hudon wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the fundamental assumption is that "Satoshi invented a useful solution to decentralized consensus". What people don't realize is that Satoshi's solution only works if two assumptions hold true: 1. Mining is decentralized: If mining is centralized than relying on proof-of-work for consensus is waste since the centralized entity controls the blockchain anyway. 2. Consensus rules don't change: If you see the thr…

PoW is just one of available consensus algorithms. Blockchain doesn’t imply decentralised consensus, you can run it on paxos, raft, authority round or something else, especially for internal, private or semi-private networks. What you get is trail log with proofs that’s immutable and strongly protected against temper.

If your definition of "blockchain" is any distributed database with signed rows and a public read-only API, it's miles away from what Satoshi was talking about... Why don't you just call it a "distributed database with signed entries" or something.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#80

Post by darpa_escapee »

malvosenior wrote: post #68
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Combined they're sitting at ~$165 billion dollars in created value . Huh? Bitcoin and Ehtereum are purely speculative assets, they have not enabled any new production or efficient distribution, they have not increased economic activity. They aren't even marginally useful in electronics production like gold is. This is like saying printing dollars creates value (though the dollar is at least useful as an instrument…

> they have not enabled any new production or efficient distribution You know of another way to transfer massive amounts of money around the globe without middle men? This claim that cryptocurrency offers no value is completely ignorant of the most basic and fundamental properties of the technology.

> You know of another way to transfer massive amounts of money around the globe without middle men

No, because I have to go through various middlemen to transfer Bitcoin and turn them into real money.

Post reply on HN