Live data from Hacker News

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

theregister.co.uk

51–60 of 247 posts

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

#51
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

[deleted]

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

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Depending on how you define "blockchain", it's either the same thing as a merkle tree or most non-bitcoin things that claim to be using blockchains actually are just using merkle trees.

> Depending on how you define "blockchain"

i.e.: Depending on whether the person saying "blockchain" is lying to make a quick buck from the hype-train.

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

#53
post #21

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…

Does it share the cost, or does it duplicate the cost?

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

#54
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How about a thing that's almost-but-not-quite a blockchain? E.g. a decentralized multi-master Event Sourcing datastore. No proof-of-work, no mining, no ledger. Anyone who can connect to the network (i.e. is whitelisted) can append whatever they like, and it'll get replicated to everybody. But nobody can delete/overwrite (without losing consensus); and every event is signed by its emitter. It's just an append-only log…

> It's just an append-only log file that happens to exist in several (geographically distant) places at once.

That's the idea. Just add a proof of causality for the transactions that span more than one peer, and you've got a blockchain.

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

#55
Blockchains make no sense when the "asset" they are tracking have to be imported from the outside world because they lose the trustless property which is the whole point.

For example supply line tracking blockchains. "Look this piece of beef was at place X on time Y with temperature Z, I have a hash and everything". Yes but how do I know that you didn't swap the barcodes or you didn't fiddle with the GPS or the thermometer was working or a million other things ?

Blockchain only makes sense if the asset is internal (i.e it gets created in it) because that makes it publicly auditable and you don't have to trust anyone. Cryptocurrency is the perfect use case and the reason they were invented.

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

#57
post #49
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…

Sounds a little like the NoSQL trend where everybody jumped on it only to find out that NoSQL is only applicable for a few use cases.

what?!?!? I hope that's sarcasm.

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

#58
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 marke…

That actually was a thriving industry for a few years in the 90s.

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

#59
post #19

I said this in another thread but I'll say it again here. I am downright shocked at just how much of a failure this technology has turned out to be. How can this many brilliant people work on an area for this long and produce almost nothing of value? I suppose it happens in areas of "pathological science" like infinite energy machines, but those are areas where the tech doesn't work and probably violates laws of phys…

> suppose it happens in areas of "pathological science" like infinite energy machines

I'd draw analogies to pyramid-schemes and "multi-level marketing", which are both "successful" but not in a good way.

I feel the collective "blockchain" mind-scape is absolutely dominated by nontechnical aspects, like the idea you can "get rich quick", and the assumption that you can find a "greater fool" to ensure your profit from a dodgy-product or speculative buying. This crowds out "actual engineering" and tends to corrupt whatever is left.

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

#60
I find this to be a little short sighted stufy. Perhaps he should ask the citizens of venezuela if it works? Or people paying taxes in bitcoin in Australia?

No doubt, there is a lot of hype. No doubt, a lot of people, including techies, have lost sight of what is important. No doubt, many in the space are impatient, and do not understand that blockchain development, the real blockchain development is more like development of aircraft frames. Slow is smooth, and smooth is fast. No doubt, people are trying to apply it where it is not necessary.

There are, however, a plethora of other use cases. The key though, in my opinion, is placing all of it under the hood, invisible to the user except where it is absolutely needed (ie, hi user! here is your wallet).

The truth is that many businesses already run replicated, distributed databases on replicated, distributed servers, and it is plenty fast since they don't have to worry about solving advanced cryptographic math equations for incentive purposes. However, one problem facing generalized platform blockchains, such as ethereum, is that the current entire concept of business and how its modeled is far behind what a blockchain can deliver to a business and its interested parties. The problem, as I see it, is primarily one of control, and secondly, one of trust.. I mentioned the replicated distributed stuff earlier, and I think it safe to say no current business will ever open nodes to outside participants (such as customers, or resellers), or even inside participants (shareholders, employees). Unless shareholders demand it (for instance, to ensure a fair number of shares can ever be created), a completely internalized blockchain is pointless and no more trustworthy to society than what we already have.

Another large problem is obviously power consumption. Every bitcoin maximalist needs to come to the realization that one of the strongest ways the established players will fight a new paradigm is by controlling power costs. For many in the developed world, bitcoin is out of reach, as mining equipment is expensive, and power makes it impossible to turn a profit. The best solution to this is green, _affordable_ energy sources and affordable mining equipment. Proof of Stake is not completely the answer.

Finally, I point to this part of the "study":

> We documented 43 blockchain use-cases through internet searches,

No wonder they got terrible results. Doctors tell patients all of the time to not google your symptoms, it always ends with cancer. Does this mean doctors are a failure?

The established financial systems took a thousand years to formulate into what we know today. Patience is power.

Post reply on HN