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

Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

theregister.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 247 posts

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#21

Post by Elv13 »

I worked on a project called GNU Ring (https://www.ring.cx) and we used a blockchain for the distributed name service (match strings to crypto signatures). By default there is a name server, but if you really, really care about getting tiny more anonymity, you can spend some CPU cycles and run your own name service locally or on a server you own.

It also share the cost of running a distributed database among those who care about privacy while letting those who care less enjoy a simpler stack. A win, win.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#22

Post by oldgradstudent »

TACIXAT wrote: post #16

I used blockchain in a project successfully, but it is not a distributed consensus application. My problem was file sharing. Torrent files send a big list of SHA1 hashes, one for each piece of the file. I replaced that idea with a single block which contains the hash of the next block (as well as two other blocks so verification isn't linear one block to the next). This allows a single block to represent the entire f…

If I understand your short description, this sounds more like a Merkle tree[1] than a blockchain.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#23

Post by manmanic »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18
manmanic wrote: post #8

I've been working on DLT / enterprise blockchain technologies since 2014 and have insight into hundreds of projects, a small number of which made it to live production. Here is the bottom line: yes, it's mostly hype, but this technology does have genuine use cases - when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or r…

> when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or regulation If you're operating a legal business, a centralized database hosted by an industry mutual or regulator beats a blockchain.

Yes, that's true. But in some cases an industry mutual doesn't exist, and the regulator doesn't want to manage the database. Then what? It can be cheaper and easier to deploy a blockchain than to build the necessary organizational structure to run a central database. Like I said, it's niche but it happens.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#24

Post by rayvy »

manmanic wrote: post #8

I've been working on DLT / enterprise blockchain technologies since 2014 and have insight into hundreds of projects, a small number of which made it to live production. Here is the bottom line: yes, it's mostly hype, but this technology does have genuine use cases - when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or r…

Yea sometimes I believe the word "enterprise blockchain" makes about as much since as a "dry rain". Basically saying that the problems that blockchain solves are usually not problems that enterprises run into often, or can't solve using some readily available alternative (e.g., SQL). Blockchain clearly satisfies a need. It's just that the great majority of enterprises clearly don't have that need.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#25

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

manmanic wrote: post #8

I've been working on DLT / enterprise blockchain technologies since 2014 and have insight into hundreds of projects, a small number of which made it to live production. Here is the bottom line: yes, it's mostly hype, but this technology does have genuine use cases - when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or r…

Can you let me know how these "private" blockchains utilize proof of X to determine consensus? E.g. proof of work, or proof of stake, or something else?

The thing I never understood with private blockchain tech is that the "traditional" blockchain (i.e. Bitcoin) relies on proof of work, and the only way this is viable is to have tons of resources working on these proofs so that you don't get a 51% attack (there have even been a bunch of articles about how smaller coins actually are very susceptible to a 51% attack by a decently funded attacker).

For a private blockchain, though, it never made sense to me as to who would serve the role of the miners with sufficient incentive to prevent a nefarious attacker. If on the other hand you are in a system where the participants agree as to how they will trust each other, well then you'd be back to a situation where the byzantine model isn't really necessary and you can just go back to a cryptographically signed ledger a la the Quantum Ledger DB that AWS just announced.

Would really appreciate someone explaining this one to me!

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#26

Post by JumpCrisscross »

manmanic wrote: post #23
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or regulation If you're operating a legal business, a centralized database hosted by an industry mutual or regulator beats a blockchain.

Yes, that's true. But in some cases an industry mutual doesn't exist, and the regulator doesn't want to manage the database. Then what? It can be cheaper and easier to deploy a blockchain than to build the necessary organizational structure to run a central database. Like I said, it's niche but it happens.

> in some cases an industry mutual doesn't exist, and the regulator doesn't want to manage the database. Then what?

If you're at the scale where broad co-ordination is a problem, you're at the scale where the big boys can arrange a meeting. Alternatively, if you're at a scale where someone can get everyone on a blockchain, you're at the scale to create an industry organization.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#27

Post by manmanic »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #25
manmanic wrote: post #8

I've been working on DLT / enterprise blockchain technologies since 2014 and have insight into hundreds of projects, a small number of which made it to live production. Here is the bottom line: yes, it's mostly hype, but this technology does have genuine use cases - when you want to build an interparty database-driven application, and cannot find a suitable place to put the database, because of business concerns or r…

Can you let me know how these "private" blockchains utilize proof of X to determine consensus? E.g. proof of work, or proof of stake, or something else? The thing I never understood with private blockchain tech is that the "traditional" blockchain (i.e. Bitcoin) relies on proof of work, and the only way this is viable is to have tons of resources working on these proofs so that you don't get a 51% attack (there have…

There are a variety of formal consensus algorithms uses for enterprise blockchains, but they are all some variant of voting schemes based on validator signatures. Nothing like proof-of-work is needed to ensure that one bad actor, or a small number of bad actors, cannot break the network's consensus. If you have just one validator, like QLDB, then you're back to a centralized scenario.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#28

Post by this_user »

Animats wrote: post #9

That's bad. I thought someone would be using a blockchain for some kind of back-end settlement system somewhere, but apparently not. On the ICO front, the SEC is now cracking down effectively. First they went after the outright frauds, such as the coin backed by nonexistent land and diamonds. They won in court. Then they went after the ones that promised big returns and didn't deliver. The SEC won again. That settled…

> That's bad. I thought someone would be using a blockchain for some kind of back-end settlement system somewhere, but apparently not.

The problem in that area is not the previous lack of available technology, it is institutional inertia. You don't need a blockchain to speed up settlements, because the technology to do it did exist before. What you need is buy-in from a bunch of old and conservatively run institutions that do not particularly like change.

The primary fallacy of all these blockchain proponents is only seeing problems as technical in nature when they really lie somewhere else. The same applies especially to smart contracts.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#29

Post by manmanic »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #26
manmanic wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's true. But in some cases an industry mutual doesn't exist, and the regulator doesn't want to manage the database. Then what? It can be cheaper and easier to deploy a blockchain than to build the necessary organizational structure to run a central database. Like I said, it's niche but it happens.

> in some cases an industry mutual doesn't exist, and the regulator doesn't want to manage the database. Then what? If you're at the scale where broad co-ordination is a problem, you're at the scale where the big boys can arrange a meeting. Alternatively, if you're at a scale where someone can get everyone on a blockchain, you're at the scale to create an industry organization.

I'm sorry but this does not always apply in the real world. Someone getting everyone onto a blockchain is a one-time project, perhaps with an annual maintenance fee. Running an industry organization is an order of magnitude (or two) more expensive. Trusting someone to build an (open source) application is not the same as trusting them to centrally host it.

Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back

#30

Post by DonHopkins »

kdowns wrote: post #3

I'm really not surprised. The most interesting thing about your business shouldn't be your choice in data-store.

But what about the Emerging CD-ROM Industry? (I want to know more about Bill Gate's goat!)

https://www.questia.com/magazine/1G1-6501528/microsoft-s-thi...

The 1988 Microsoft CD-ROM Conference held in Seattle in March, attracted about 2,000 industry insiders. The tone and ambience of the conference reflect a definite change in the industry. Most companies were represented not only by top management, but by their marketing personnel. Few blue-jeaned engineers or techies were found in the crowds. CD-ROM appears to have arrived.

FINDING A PATHWAY TO THE FUTURE

In his keynote address, Bill Gates, Microsoft's founder and chairman, reiterated his goat of making computers affordable and attractive enough to be "on every desk, in every home." Gates reported that less than 50,000 CD-ROM drives are currently in the marketplace. These are either in very narrow vertical markets, such as libraries, or are being used by the industry itself. The problem of low drive sales is compounded by the high cost of developing a multimedia product. Gates estimated that it costs $1 million for each disk product, an investment that many companies have been unwilling or unable to make.

The lack of a "rich standard for audio-visual" components of CD-ROM development, and the limited tools available to developers today, are two other important reasons Gates cited for the slow growth of the CD-ROM industry.

Post reply on HN