Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back • Hacker News Board

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

#171

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 5:47 AM UTC

sfescape wrote: post #111

jacobr1 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rebranding of old and boring tech A distributed merkle-chain database is still pretty innovative. A good example is git. I think what many private groups want is a "binary git for transaction data". Everybody can review their own copy of the shared chain with signing of new links in the chain. Now that isn't really a full blockchain, but is a different kind of thing from a central RDMS.

That is a blockchain, and provides the validation and history integrity that is core to (and where the name 'blockchain') comes from.

Except the issue is that Git, which includes validation and history integrity, was invented in 2005 and predates the publication of the bitcoin whitepaper by 3 years.

The point being that all the hype about "blockchain everywhere" came about because of bitcoin. If people are now starting to refer to just the "hash of blocks with previous blocks" (i.e. the "Timestamp Server" section of the original bitcoin whitepaper) as blockchain withOUT the proof of work/stake part, well then you really are just rebranding old tech as blockchain, because it was the proof of work part that was really the new thing in bitcoin.

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

#172

Post by Alex3917 » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 5:59 AM UTC

ChrisLomont wrote: post #168

Alex3917 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's only been ten years and it takes on average around 40 years for a new technology to become useful. And this technology is much bigger and more complicated than the average new breakthrough technology, like the semiconductor or whatever.

Where did you get your 40 year claim? Plenty of research claims otherwise, e.g., https://hbr.org/2013/11/the-pace-of-technology-adoption-is-s... Even your semiconductor example was immediately adopted and used. A decade into Blockchain and it's still all claim and no adoption, as this study found.

From the famous Carlotta Perez book.

The reason tech adoption looks like it’s speeding up is that in that chart is just that they’re looking at more and more trivial examples. E.g. the cell phone might create huge changes in human behavior, but they’re not really a foundational technology. They’re more of an incrementally better version of a phone and a computer.

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

#173

Post by beefield » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 6:20 AM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #87

simonw wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you talk me through how a blockchain solution would help avoid this in a bit more detail? I've seen lots of vague "blockchain for supply chains is a great idea" pronouncements but I don't get how it would actually work.

Sure, so each party in the supply chain registers their private key with a PKI by going to the PKI's website (e.g. GoDaddy) and sticking their USB fob into their computer. The PKI associates the private key with an identity, and allows private keys to be voided and replaced if they get lost or whatever. Then as each head of lettuce is picked, it goes into a crate that's securely sealed and then signed with the farmer…

How about the types of products that can't be stored in a secure package from producer to consumer through the supply chain but need somehow be processed within the supply chain? You know, at least something like 99.9999% of the products...

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

#174

Post by otabdeveloper2 » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 6:34 AM UTC

simonw wrote: post #88

My favourite terrible blockchain idea is real estate on the blockchain. Because presumably that means that if someone guesses or steals my password, they now own my house.

Presumably, if this were really implemented, the way it would work would be something like this: you'd upload your legal documents to the blockchain, and sign them with your private key, your notary's/lawyer's public keys, the realtor's public keys, and the hash of the previous owner's legal documents, and so on.

But of course this isn't really a blockchain, it's just a CMS with a PKI interface.

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

#175

Post by qyv » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 6:39 AM UTC

sk221 wrote: post #156

drexlspivey wrote: post #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 therm…

I think blockchains can help minimize trust even if it's dealing with assets outside the blockchain. Let's use your beef example. The beef might come from a farm. It's certified organic. It gets shipped off to a distributor. The distributor sells it to a store. You go to a store and buy it. In the current system, if the store is a bad actor (e.g. selling beef it claims is organic, when it's actually not) then you don…

Replace the word blockchain with database and describe how your example works any differently. I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. There is nothing in your example that requires the use of a blockchain. If that beef was tracked in a standard database they would still need to buy beef that was "legit" as far as the database is concerned if they wanted to make a legit claim.

Tracking external assets requires trust, period. And that being the case, what advantage does blockchain bring to the solution?

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

#176

Post by qyv » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 6:40 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #134

osrec wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I extend it further: the moment you need to verify that something happened outside the system, your blockchain is broken.

There are ideas around trusted oracles and consensus recommendation ratings for oracles that aren't terrible and may work (no comment on scalability, of course).

Trusted is the opposite of trustless.

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

#177

Post by philliphaydon » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 7:14 AM UTC

sk221 wrote: post #156

drexlspivey wrote: post #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 therm…

I think blockchains can help minimize trust even if it's dealing with assets outside the blockchain. Let's use your beef example. The beef might come from a farm. It's certified organic. It gets shipped off to a distributor. The distributor sells it to a store. You go to a store and buy it. In the current system, if the store is a bad actor (e.g. selling beef it claims is organic, when it's actually not) then you don…

This already exists without blockchain. And blockchain adds nothing. China has a huge issue with fake milk powder. That milk powder now comes in a container with a unique identifier that you can look up and vertify that it’s come from the manufacturer and not some other source. There is no added value in tampering with the container and if it’s faked it cannot be verified.

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

#178

Post by hndamien » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 7:16 AM UTC

therein wrote: post #144

dnautics wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are ideas around trusted oracles and consensus recommendation ratings for oracles that aren't terrible and may work (no comment on scalability, of course).

I cannot trust a system that trusts an oracle.

What if it is a trustless Oracle? Augur kind of tries to be this, and appears to do well within a limited scope.

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

#179

Post by JdeBP » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 7:32 AM UTC

zanny wrote: post #123

api wrote: 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…

If money is the root of all evil, give technologists and futurists the ability to print money they can swindle muggles into pouring their life savings into as a get rich quick scheme or espouse at a pitch about how life changing it is and how much excessive amounts of money they need to get paid to copy paste half the Bitcoin Core or Etherium repo. You see pretty fast the dissolution of values in the face of potentia…

Actually, it is the love of money (φιλαργυρία) that is stated to be the root of all evil.

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

#180

Post by burntrelish1273 » Sat, Dec 01, 2018, 8:18 AM UTC

In the gratuitous conflation of reality and fiction department: almost everything hyping blockchain reminds me of the unique, hilarious romcom Shooting Fish (1997) where a couple of con-artists fake a "next gen" AI computer Turing test with a dude in another room and a computer full of bricks. They also live in a water tower and fraudulently sell homeowners insulation that they move from house-to-house across shared attics.