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

231–240 of 247 posts

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

#231

Post by wslh »

dlubarov wrote: post #182
wslh wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 machine…

> Casper itself is simple and comes with a simple proof

When I read the updates about Casper[1] there are plenty of issues presented, so don't sure why you are saying Casper itself is simple.

Fine you are working in the "Sigma Network", we are working with one of the projects mentioned there.

[1] https://medium.com/prysmatic-labs/

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

#232

Post by hndamien »

davidgerard wrote: post #202
hndamien wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Very limited, i.e. they're down to a few tens of people bothering to vote daily.

The amount of people “voting” seems to be less important than the amount at stake, as if it was a large stake proved incorrectly somebody may come in and fix that. $1.2m trades in 1 market with $800k open interest isn’t that bad.

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

#233

Post by Thiez »

arisAlexis wrote: post #229
Thiez wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its creator also opposes same sex marriage. Perhaps creating a programming language doesn't mean you're right in all other contexts.

you are confusing social with technical

I'm not confused. Do you honestly believe that all programming language creators agree on all technical subjects? They can't even agree on curly braces vs whitespace sensitive. And blockchain is a different subject than programming languages, they can't make an argument from authority.

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

#234

Post by tim333 »

asynchrony wrote: post #213
seibelj wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A blockchain is a database optimized for that use case. Your desire to avoid the word blockchain is because you don’t like the connotations.

A blockchain isn't optimal for anything. If it was there should be some evidence of it improving something in the real world, no? Something other than a cult of buzzwords and speculation.

What was probably the original blockchain was created for bitcoin and is good for that. Though the paper didn't coin the word blockchain, it described it "As later blocks are chained after it, the work to change the block would include redoing all the blocks after it."

Then after bitcoin had gone up the marketing guys saw visions of billions in free money and started saying blockchain, blockchain!

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

#235

Post by tim333 »

beefield wrote: post #173
Alex3917 wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

I'm not sure secure sealing is done or necessary. If you get ecoli then just asking who the lettuce supplier was is probably enough. The government inspectors can then go check them.

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

#236

Post by marssaxman »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #224
marssaxman wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, if only it were that simple.

No need to be glib. The kinds of situations that are being discussed as the best for blockchain are literally the most intractable - hence why I said it was not a technology solution. If you're in a situation where cryptocurrency is the best solution for currency, then you're probably in a lawless wasteland with abjectly destructive governance systems. Seems like in that circumstance moving is the right answer.

I'm not being glib, I'm observing that the global system of passports and visa controls makes "moving" nearly impossible. I nearly pulled it off just over twenty years ago, but I failed, and now I'm permanently stuck back "home". Cryptocurrencies won't help, they're just another way to do capitalism.

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

#237

Post by pas »

thisisit wrote: post #161
mathnmusic wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not necessarily true. You can create a marketplace for facts (eg: oracles or prediction markets) and therefore create incentives for bystanders to bring facts to blockchain. Sure, it doesn't have 100% guarantees, but it might improve on the current scenario in certain cases.

That is assuming everyone is moved by money and everything works in perfectly rational way. The problem is - humans are irrational.

No, that's a very bad model. Humans have a hidden utility function and they maximize that. (See also bounded rationality, weak revealed preference axiom for market modeling.)

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

#238

Post by pas »

davidgerard wrote: post #203
mathnmusic wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not necessarily true. You can create a marketplace for facts (eg: oracles or prediction markets) and therefore create incentives for bystanders to bring facts to blockchain. Sure, it doesn't have 100% guarantees, but it might improve on the current scenario in certain cases.

Your claim is remarkably hypothetical and lacking in details. That said, even then - when would it be cheaper just to bribe the voters?

That's why people stake claims, and the more money they put up, the more they bet on what they claim, the more you can be sure that it's not just a troll, not a hoax, not someone trying to move the market, not someone bought and paid for (so not a Sybil attack).

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

#239

Post by tomrod »

atq2119 wrote: post #186
spookthesunset wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Right. But that's just distributed info, it's more or less a solved problem for many things (P2P, git, etc.). The proof of work is the "value add" of the enterprise, as it were, and there are certainly valuable use cases. But the implementation of distributed, cryptographically secure ledgers are not without tradeoffs--there is no free lunch.

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

#240

Post by theamk »

pas wrote: post #238
davidgerard wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your claim is remarkably hypothetical and lacking in details. That said, even then - when would it be cheaper just to bribe the voters?

That's why people stake claims, and the more money they put up, the more they bet on what they claim, the more you can be sure that it's not just a troll, not a hoax, not someone trying to move the market, not someone bought and paid for (so not a Sybil attack).

But staking is naturally limited by the amount of money one has -- so it would be a great advantage for big corps with PR budgets and a disadvantage for individuals. Do we really want that?

Hypothetical example:

- The Citizen (on blockchain): EvilCorp is dumping toxic waste on my property! They are making millions of dollars from my ruin! I stake all of my available money -- $20,000 -- on this statement.

- EvilCorp (on blockchain): No we are not. We stake 1% of our discretionary PR budget -- $200,000 -- on this statement.

- PR firm (on blockchain): We stake $200,000 to support EvilCorp. They are our biggest customer, and we can handle the (unlikely) money loss if this means good relationship.

- Other citizens of the town: yeah, that sludge looks really nasty.. but EvilCorp has a ton of money. That guy has almost nothing, I do not think he is going to win. If we support him, we will likely lose our stake. So it makes financial sense to side with EvilCorp.

- Blockchain decides EvilCorp is correct. The Citizen now has backyard full of toxic sludge and broke.

- EvilCorp and PR firm both get even more money.

Post reply on HN