The best use case for blockchain is smart contracts. Guaranteed continuous liquidity without a counter-party (bancor/uniswap), self collateralize loans (maker), stable coins without counter party risk (maker again), etc.
You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
41–50 of 415 posts
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#42I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
You can repeat it all the times you want, but it it is still a shortsighted view. “A database and a contract”... but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. I agree 100% with the article in that blockchain is being ‘applied’ to a whole bunch of places that don’t need it. That doesn’t mean that it can’t work wel…
> Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems.
Sort of:
> who owns the database?
Whoever has the most computational resources, in most implementations.
> who enforces the contract?
Depends on the contract. If I sell my house via a blockchain contract, a computer isn't going to come and evict me. If I sell you some heroin, or an action figure, or a rare in-game skin, it's still not going to help.
> who owns the actual data?
Nobody, and that's a problem when data needs to be removed.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#43I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
You can repeat it all the times you want, but it it is still a shortsighted view. “A database and a contract”... but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. I agree 100% with the article in that blockchain is being ‘applied’ to a whole bunch of places that don’t need it. That doesn’t mean that it can’t work wel…
> who owns the database?
A trusted authority with legal obligations of honesty.
> And who enforces the contract?
The court system.
> And who owns the actual data?
Ownership of data is a very ill-defined concept and not well-specified by a blockchain system either.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#44I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
Really? You (seriously plan to resort to) go(ing) to court over every contractual dispute? Even $5?
HN Bandwagon, Monday: "Don't you understand that courts exist to make it so no one can break a contract without penalty?"
HN Bandwagon, Tuesday: "Lol don't go to court over $5, that's stupid."
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#45This is an interesting project with the department of defense - https://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/...
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#46I'm reminded of the helpful "How to decide if blockchain is right for your project" flowchart ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPFvZuqU8AAeU0C?format=jpg ) from @MalwareTechBlog.
James Mickens Blockchains are a bad idea also is a good one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#47I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
You can repeat it all the times you want, but it it is still a shortsighted view. “A database and a contract”... but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. I agree 100% with the article in that blockchain is being ‘applied’ to a whole bunch of places that don’t need it. That doesn’t mean that it can’t work wel…
The database owner owns the database.
Lawyers and judges enforce the contracts.
Data ownership is stipulated by statute or contract.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#48I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
Not necessarily for or against "blockchain" in any one specific use case, but I'm curious why you would define anything that can't use contracts and the legal system as "illegal".
I can imagine that for many non-first world countries where people wouldn't trust things to the legal system or contracts - I wouldn't necessarily define those things as illegal.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#49I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…
There are other legit reasons for not being able to use regular contracts and legal systems.
For example, when you are dealing with multiple small transactions where a potential for fraud on the buyer side is significant.
Also, if you want to build automated systems for money management, the barrier of entry will be significant in the legacy banking system.
Or managing electronic assets (stocks etc) - blockchain significantly lowered a barrier for entry in those cases.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#50"However, this system is vulnerable to a very simple threat: a dishonest seller can make a copy of a real bottle with a token, fill it with wine of lower quality, and either steal you..." The argument around “someone that doesn’t care about tokens” is weak because that applies to any authenticity solution. The idea behind the authenticity guarantees would be that every step along the way, you add a record that the ob…
At which point you're back to a centralized system - who maintains the blacklist and has authority to add people to it?