Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

blog.smartdec.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 415 posts

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#51

Post by nsxwolf »

SilasX wrote: post #44
gregschlom wrote: post #33

I'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."

Credit card companies have a good system for handling $5 disputes. They write them off.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#52

Post by adwn »

AlunAlun wrote: post #37
gregschlom wrote: post #33

I'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…

> And who enforces the contract? [...] Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems.

No, it doesn't, not if the contract touches on anything outside the blockchain. At the very least this includes anything physical (physical objects or physical services) and currencies not based on that particalur blockchain.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#54

Post by skilgarriff »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #42
AlunAlun wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. >…

To be fair, I think most people who have given blockchain an honest 30 minutes of brainstorming aren't arguing for real world assets connected to a chain.

I would argue that there is potentially a use case when it comes to things that can be completely represented digitally e.g. money.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#55

Post by treis »

melkiaur wrote: post #3

I hate the blockchain hype. I think most uses can be solved by a simple database hosted by a trusted authority. Yet, just reading the first two samples, I already disagree with them. Re the 1st one: it's true only if the transporter doesn't risk anything if the sensor is tampered with. As soon as you introduce strong fines and/or consequences if a validating authority randomly checks your goods and discover some tamp…

> I think most uses can be solved by a simple database hosted by a trusted authority

People say this in every blockchain related thing that pops up on HN but it excludes literally the only legitimate use case for a blockchain. That being the scenario where you don't have or don't want to rely on a trusted authority.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#56

Post by adfgnionio »

azernik wrote: post #43
AlunAlun wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>A trusted authority with legal obligations of honesty.

It doesn't even need to be that trusted. You can stipulate in the contract that they must stream the log to you and then scream bloody murder if they try to monkey with anything. A blockchain is just a trendy write-ahead-log.

You could do this on pretty much any database I know of, but it's a kind of dumb idea.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#57

Post by pavel_lishin »

skilgarriff wrote: post #54
pavel_lishin wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. >…

To be fair, I think most people who have given blockchain an honest 30 minutes of brainstorming aren't arguing for real world assets connected to a chain. I would argue that there is potentially a use case when it comes to things that can be completely represented digitally e.g. money.

That I agree with. I've seen some pretty interesting proposals for on-chain games.

But it still adds new problems. Electricity use, the irrecoverability of data/auth if you lose a key, the inability to erase problematic data.

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#58

Post by thih9 »

gregschlom wrote: post #33

I'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…

> In other words, anything illegal.

It seems to me this could mean both:

1. Allowing illegal activity. (Eg when legal system can’t be used because the action in question is illegal).

2. Preventing illegal activity (Eg when legal system can’t be used because of difficulties to verify and/or execute).

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#59

Post by [deleted] »

danielmg wrote: post #13
melkiaur wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one I like: the farmer has a veal and introduces its date of birth on the blockchain. The veterinary that comes to check it posts a validation mark on the blockchain. If you trust the veterinary, you should trust the birthdate. The veal grows up to become a cow, and is sent for slaughter. The farmer stores an event on the blockchain and sends it to be cut into meat. The slaughterhouse stores an event (with th…

That's already a solved problem in the UK after the BSE crisis. From what I was told (by a friend who worked on it), it uses certificates to provide trust and verification. Uses a central database hosted by DEFRA. No blockchain needed. https://secure.services.defra.gov.uk/wps/portal/ctso/ Everything you describe can be solved, in a better and more efficient way, by non-blockchain technologies.

[deleted]

Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

#60

Post by MusaTheRedGuard »

gregschlom wrote: post #33

I'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…

First of all, no. Global, trustless coordination is a hard problem and is not necessarily illegal.

Second, legality is subjective around the world. It is currently illegal in the US to gamble online, for some reason, even though casinos and lotteries are a thing.

It is illegal in many countries to transfer a certain amount of money out of the country, for some reason.

Certain sexualities are illegal in quite a few countries.

Illegal != bad

Post reply on HN