I live in USA Florida and i am a happy woman today? I told my self that any Loan lender that could change my Life and that of my family, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to Them. If you are in need of loan and you are 100% sure to pay back the loan please contact them and please tell them that Mrs Sharon Coolidge referred you to them. barrymoreloans12@gmail.com or you can text +19725345446
Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
181–190 of 247 posts
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#182Earlier quoted context omitted.
There might be some constant factor penalty, but we can shard BFT systems much like we do with Paxos etc. See Shasper for example -- it won't have any practical limits on throughput.
Shasper[1] "Note: This is an experimental project. Everything will break, and it may disappear without any notice!" (sic). Until we don't see a community working on adversarial attacks, we will not know if it is secure of not. There is concrete research about BFT since 1982. [1] https://github.com/paritytech/shasper
Is your concern that the algorithms involved in schemes like Shasper might not be correct, or that their economic assumptions about attacks might fail?
I think it's very unlikely that any of the theoretical ideas behind Shasper are incorrect. Casper itself is simple and comes with a simple proof, and it's similar to an old algorithm by DLS [1], which also comes with a proof. Sharding does introduce some other machinery, like VDFs for randomness (specifically [2]), but that has been vetted by plenty of cryptographers such as Dan Boneh's group.
So even though there aren't any large-scale deployments of BFT algorithms yet, the approach is widely thought to be sound. I'm working on a blockchain based on sharded BFT, as is Ethereum, RapidChain, NEAR Protocol, and others.
It's always possible that our economic assumptions will fail, but they're not radically different from Bitcoin's. You can attack Bitcoin by buying 51% of all hash power, or you can attack a BFT system by buying 34% of all stake. Either way it comes down to making an assumption about the attacker's funding.
[1] https://groups.csail.mit.edu/tds/papers/Lynch/jacm88.pdf
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#183Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you please give a more specific example to illustrate the case? From my perspective, blockchains are suitable for two things: People who want to misbehave(therefore they don't have legal recourse, independent of the morality of the extralegal actions) and people at war with each other that still need to have a relationship with each other. It's kind of the perfect technology for a collapsed civilization or the re…
people at war with each other that still need to have a relationship with each other So Wall Street banks?
No, not really :) More like Iran and Israel when they want to resolve a difficult situation in Syria where fighting is not preferred by both of the parties but they don't have a trusted 3rd party to handle the orderly resolution.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
what?!?!? I hope that's sarcasm.
Not really. A few years ago there was a lot of hype around NoSQL and everybody wanted to jump on it only to find out that in many cases NoSQL didn't make anything better.
Yes I guess developers never really took to MongoDB, Memcache, Redis and such.
Not to mention object stores like Amazon S3 which are also a kind of NoSQL database and are totally useless.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#185title: "Where is your distributed ledger technology now?"
Just being rational and before reading the article, you can deduct there is some kind of bias.
"Any claim made for blockchain could be made for databases"
We can deduct here that author has no deep understanding of the technology.
"that's something we can confidently tell you for nothing: no, it isn't"
Author is dismissive and angry (didn't adopt early?)
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#186Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Blockchain replicates computing costs. Which is about as relevant as the cost of tea in china. Or, to steal another analogy, counting on database efficiency as the competitive advantage for your business is like picking up nickels in front of a steamroller. Especially since DLT efficiency will eventually be figured out. Even if it takes another five or ten years or even twenty years, that's nothing in the grand sch…
> Especially since DLT efficiency will eventually be figured out. Lol. The BlockChain is inefficient by design ! It is that exact inefficiency that makes it trustless.
Yes, it is. But to be fair to the DLT people, distributed ledgers could be useful without proof of work. They simply need a different, domain-specific consensus mechanism.
Git is basically a distributed ledger without the proof of work inefficiency.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#187Blockchains 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…
If (there are trackers for supply chains already)
then { blockchain is surely better because it is immutable and can have multiple validators }
and there are trackers for supply chain already run on centralized databases that can be tampered.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#188Earlier quoted context omitted.
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, perio…
"I'll give you a hint: it doesn't"
It surprises me how much anger and claims of authority people that don't like blockchain show. Just be modest and open to potential uses of a technology. Are you a coder? Have you ever used Javascript? If yes then it's creator is a big proponent of blockchains. Take a moment to think about this. Numerous other examples too.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#189Blockchains 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…
Ah! I keep hearing people talking about blockchain and supply chain and it makes zero sense to me. So we agree that this is bullshit?
Cryptocurrency and proof of work/stake and automated conteacts make no sense in the context of the supply chain.
A distributed database ("ledger") might make sense in the context of supply chains.
The competing technology is to have a central clearinghouse for the relevant data. Or to just not track the data at all.
Re: Blockchain study finds zero success rate and vendors don't call back
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Nothing about the blockchain can tell you whether somebody switched the labels, or who did it. And the not-guilty parties probably have no way of verifying what they received, either. Having movements logged in a federated database has all the same properties.
What do you think is easier: making several companies run on their servers a federated databases or using a worldwide publicly available one?