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

Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#131

Post by Fnoord »

kerng wrote: post #127
Fnoord wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Statements like "public blockchain security is a lie", are just not useful. The good news is the statement you quoted was not made. > I'd expect more depth and logical statements for a presentation at a university. The slides contain logic statements, depth, and e.g. historical comparisons. Since there's some character assassination in this thread (how sad): Nicholas Weaver's credentials can be found here [1]. [1]…

Sorry, I don't know the author and it shouldn't matter. Still think the slides are made up of emotional trigger words rather then arguments and content, you can grab content like this from random reddit threads. How sad indeed.

They're a summary (powerpoint presentation); not the actual argument(s). Emotional trigger words stick; empty abstract words don't.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#132

Post by Fnoord »

lojack wrote: post #125
Fnoord wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git?

I didn’t realize git was Turing complete

"Turing complete" wasn't part of GP's suggestion; my reply therefore still applies. On top of that, Ethereum's "turing complete" relies on an unsafe, unproven and likely broken programming language.

And I didn't realise the secrets I gave to my notary were out in the open. Hint: they're not, and that's legally enforceable. The blockchain is nothing because data is [legally] [1] nothing. You might as well just use public key cryptography and release your data over BitTorrent, like Wikileaks did. It'll get distributed based on supply & demand, and using BitTorrent is still cheaper & efficient than blockchain.

[1] At least, in the EU.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#133

Post by jayd16 »

as300 wrote: post #90
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> smart contracts and distributed algorithms enable control mechanism and hard guarantees that have no old world equivalent, they can eliminate counterparty risks, guarantee solvency and fair arbitration etc. The required nexus between the blockchain and the tangible and legal worlds means every limitation that exists today will exist for a "smart contract". It's the same plumbing with a paint job.

I'm sort of thinking out loud here, but the nexus will have to consist of third-party auditors who operate based on reputation. Right now, we have the government operating as both the "miners" and the auditors. A middle-ground, then, might be one in which there is a general-purpose public blockchain where the government takes the role of the trusted third-party on-chain , thereby lowering the overall societal costs o…

This is called the Federal Reserve Bank and it is indeed separate from the tax and fraud portions of the federal government in the US.

But the rest of your post is pretty silly. How does a secure digital exchange protect against fraud? It doesn't.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#135

Post by psychedelic »

sp332 wrote: post #97
kthejoker2 wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain? My understanding is we're all working on the same hard math problem, once a certain number of us have verified the answer (ie distributed consensus) one of us is given a reward to encourage further problem solving.

Nope, any bitcoin client can verify any transaction very easily. (Bootstrapping by verifying every transaction in the blockchain does take a while though.) Proof of work is only to prevent a 51% attack where someone spins up enough bots to hijack "consensus" and rewrite transaction history. That's why the difficulty can be dialed up or down - most of the work in mining is not related to verifying the transactions.

Yes. People often misunderstand that verifying transactions with blockchain is intrinsically difficult which is not the case. The hard part is making a ledger that can't be rewritten.

And mining is actually less akin to solving math problems and more akin to, well, actually mining. That is, digging around enough until you find some gold.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#136

Post by jwilliams »

cornholio wrote: post #32

There is some truth in the slides but it's well mixed with falsehoods and misunderstandings. * Distributed consensus schemes are not useful only for monetary applications. When they are used as such, there exist mechanisms to commit to a certain fiat price and minimize market exposure to the point where transactions are almost free, in fiat terms. * The disbursement of tokens and the distributed consensus rewards do…

> That being said, 95% of the times the word "blockcahin" is uttered these days, what follows is most likely bullshit.

This is true -- it's also true the 5% is pretty damn interesting.

There are plenty of interesting tokens out there. Some of them are tackling real problems. That's pretty exciting. I don't begrudge someone who's trying to solve something.

The historical analogs are lazy in my view. The financial and political system we operate in today has done plenty of damage. Indeed, some of the key examples listed on the slide.

The last global financial crisis wasn't that long ago (and wasn't that "reversible", certain people may recall). You could spin every one of those dot-points as commentary on our existing financial systems.

Doesn't mean blockchain is going to fix it. In fact, I have many doubts and concerns. There is so much to do. However, I really like that people are trying.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#137

Post by jayd16 »

lojack wrote: post #84
dozzie wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> * Distributed consensus schemes are not useful only for monetary applications. OK, but blockchain is not a distributed consensus protocol. It's a document timestamping protocol.

Yes, a document timestamping protocol that we reach a consensus on in a distributed fashion. I'm not sure why a document timestamping protocol can't also be a distributed consensus protocol?

I do kind of find it annoying that we use the word distributed when its a clustered/consensus system. In my mind distributed should mean actors can work independently of each other but that's not really the case here. But this ship has sailed.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#138

Post by acdha »

cachvico wrote: post #83
dlp211 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So these people are essentially poor and don't have access to trade and Banking, but they are going to have access to the blockchain, hardware wallets, and the various other technologies they need, and this will all happen before banks or mobile app payment systems are able to capture the market? Call me a skeptic.

Yes. The implication is that the 2B unbanked will get access to a cheap Android, and therefore ability to trade instantly with anyone anywhere with no fees, before the banana state fixes their massively corrupt government.

> ability to trade instantly with anyone anywhere with no fees

Neither of those statements has ever been true and in recent years they've been ludicrously untrue — affluent people in developed countries were complaining about the transaction costs and they're supposed to be transformative for people in a developing country?

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#139

Post by psychedelic »

jcranmer wrote: post #99
dlp211 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So these people are essentially poor and don't have access to trade and Banking, but they are going to have access to the blockchain, hardware wallets, and the various other technologies they need, and this will all happen before banks or mobile app payment systems are able to capture the market? Call me a skeptic.

It's staggering to think that these bitcoin enthusiasts have never heard of M-Pesa or other similar systems. Note that these systems work with dumbphones, which is useful because (I believe) almost all of the mobile phone penetration in places like Africa are dumbphones, not smartphones.

You've never visited Africa, have you?
Post reply on HN