Live data from Hacker News

Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

reuters.com

221–230 of 487 posts

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#221
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wouldn't a simple system of signatures certified by a certificate authority (like for the web) solve this problem in a much more direct way?

What's to keep a party from chucking out a signed document that they don't like?

The check is a positive one for presence. Items which aren't tagged are untrusted.

If they throw out a signature they don't like, the system works perfectly fine - it's treated like any other untrusted product.

No one should trust a system that has a "don't trust this, it's bad" flag, it should always be "trust this, it's clean".

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#222
I would take any article like this with a grain of salt. There is not a lot of useful or technical information here, and I believe it is more designed as click bait and FUD to create shock value and hurt the public sentiment about Blockchain technology and investing in crypto currencies.

That said, on the flip side, a lot of people have been considering Blockchain as some kind of magic solution to all of the world’s problems, and that is also very far from reality. If it takes an article in Reuters for people to realize this than so be it.

I have believed for a while that Blockchain technology in the context that many big companies refer to it is not very useful. Usually these are the same people who claim that Bitcoin is useless and Blockchain technology is where the real value is. I think they are either mistaken or misinformed.

In my opinion, anyone who plans to build a centrally controlled Blockchain is making a mistake. Even if the data is signed/hashed and distributed, it only takes one bad actor inside the organization who has access to the nodes to alter the Blockchain by performing a 51% attack (changing the transaction data on more than half of the nodes). Therefore the entire idea of a Blockchain being immutable is thrown out the window. You would be much better off using an open source database like MySQL or Postgres or Mongo. Blockchains are expensive to run and operate and are extremely slow.

However, the idea that Blockchains are a solution in search of a problem that the article suggests is also a bit misleading. I think it’s more likely that these companies are trying to find solutions for things that aren’t problems in the first place which isn’t the fault of Blockchain technology itself. I feel pretty strongly that blockchains have already solved a few problems.

- They solve the double spending problem (the idea that the same tokens can be spent more than once)

- They allow people to store value without depending on any third party (such as a bank)

- They remove all the intermediaries required for sending payments/data from one person to another.

- They make it cheaper and faster to send any amount of money to anyone in the world

To me, those are all transformative properties of blockchains, and anyone who overlooks them is somewhat missing the point. That said, in order to check off all these bullet points, you need to have a peer to peer, decentralized network where peers are rewarded with crypto currencies for securing the network, not just a few servers running inside of a company as a replacement for a centralized database.

Will there be good Blockchain applications outside of crypto currencies? I’m not sure, but to me, there is nothing wrong with that. If, in the future, banks and cash become obsolete and everyone stores their money on their own secure, digital wallets, then I would say that Blockchain technology changed the world for the better.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or simply "git"

When meeting my company's Head of Blockchain (not sure if the pun is intended) a while ago, I asked him if git would qualify as blockchain technology. He replied that "blockchain is not a technology, It's a paradigm shift". Literally. That statement was so absurd I didn't even know what to say, so it worked out well for him.

This is exactly what's driving my skepticism. The people who I've met who are most vocal about "blockchain" are also the ones who know little to nothing about the algorithm itself (and algorithms in general).

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#224
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…

> Mining is decentralized Cryptocurrency mining is as close as one can get to a theoretical free market in the real world. Free markets have known modes of failure [1]. One of these is where first-mover advantage and economies of scale combine to produce a barrier to entry; the result is oligopoly or monopoly. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure

Except that so far it remains to be seen if that can work at scale. Bitcoin is moving towards the lightning network which changes things quite a bit, in particular potentially adding some centralization and giving some nodes advantages over others (well connected nodes with large open channels will have an advantage over a newcomer without connections for instance).

Bitcoin cash is trying an other route with bigger blocks but it remains to be seen if it scales well enough to real-world currency usage. And of course there's the big problem of cryptocurrencies being useless as currencies because they're not stable enough. Which itself can be largely blamed on their limited supply and inflationary nature which is necessary to bootstrap them (there's an incentive to get in early) but seems to turn against them in the long run since nobody wants to spend something that's by design supposed to become scarcer and scarcer.

It might be theoretically free but it doesn't work great so far. And of course we could discuss whether a completely free market is a good or a bad thing, but that's a whole different debate.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#225

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

And how would a blockchain stop a government from putting a counterfeit record in to start?

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#227

Coming from a logistics background, coordinating tracability data is painful within a company , even with help of ERP like SAP. But when you need tracability across an industry , it becomes almost impossible. I had professional experience in an industry where we had to go to the plants to ensure rolls of paper certified from suppliers using responsibly-managed forests were physically separated from the non-certified…

What you've described is provenance I believe. And that is the only, imho, use case for blockchain that makes any sense. It's the only one where the substantial additional overhead and complexity of blockchain is actually still less than the alternative, as your example clearly illustrates. To attempt to answer a question from sibling comments: these systems are private or closed blockchains, not public. You have a t…

I feel like a private/closed blockchain would defeat the purpose. I want a future where a public blockchain would act a repository of everything that has happened to the final product throughout its history, on top of which applications would be developped, relevant for each step of the chain. The producer A that would input certification of origin, the manufacturer B, and the end consumer C would need very different services, web, app, industrial applications, ERP integrations and so on.

To express it in an analogy with current services, I would like the blockchain to be a database, exposing a universal API. I don't really see a private blockchain allowing this, but I may be wrong. And indeed there will be the thorny authentication issue... I don't know the solution, really !

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#228
post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“governmemts are thinking of putting assets and laws on Blockchain” Two things: this statement is so vague it borders on meaningless. What assets? Who will put it in there? The president? Why would a government do that? Is it free to do or is there budget? Etc. Secondly, even if we could surmount the vagueness that plagues not just this idea but all blockchain ideas, the Herculean effort required to move governments…

assets like everything from real estate records to money to corporate stocks to car ownership to birth certificates. What you call vagueness I call short sightedness and failing to see the big picture. It has been done before with all major breakthroughs since the applications are not immediately obvious to everyone.

It's also been done with things that failed to deliver on their promises.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is generally my main source of skepticism relating to blockchain solutions. The ledger is 100% trustable as long as it describes digital assets that are entirely confined within the distributed ledger, but a digital token doesn't stop men with guns from taking your house. Just like a digital signature provides no guarantees that the associated information is true.

No but it certifies who has entered the info, right? That might be part of the solution here

Maybe it just certifies a "company" headquartered in an empty office in some commercial park entered the info.

Re: Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality

#230
post #122
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do need middlemen. The middleman is whatever service you must use to convert btc or eth to local currency which will actually be accepted for payments.

No. You don't need "local currency". With widespread adoption you can just pay sellers directly with cryptocurrency.

And unless you're selling drugs or malware, you can't do that.
Post reply on HN