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

61–70 of 415 posts

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

#61

Post by dnautics »

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…

Exactly. Not every issue where you have a fuzzy notion of trust is a legal one.

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

#62

Post by LiquidSky »

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.

>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.

The comment above says that the blockchain provides a satisfactory answer to enforcement of contracts. People really do seem to think that contracts made on the blockchain will magically enforce themselves in the real world.

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

#63

Post by [deleted] »

nsxwolf wrote: post #47
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…

The database owner owns the database. Lawyers and judges enforce the contracts. Data ownership is stipulated by statute or contract.

[deleted]

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

#64

Post by root_axis »

MusaTheRedGuard wrote: post #28

Most people who are even a little bit serious about working/investing in crypto, are well aware of this and have been saying this for the past few years. Inb4 "you're not investing, you're speculating/gambling". I'm aware. Inb4 "blockchain is a slower database". Again, I'm aware.

> Most people who are even a little bit serious about working/investing in crypto, are well aware of this

Not really sure how you can back up this claim. After hundreds of interacts with blockchain enthusiasts, I have observed that most of them subscribe to at least one of false use cases listed in the article, especially #7 and very often #1-3 and #6 as well.

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

#65

Post by dnautics »

skilgarriff wrote: post #48
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…

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.

Or even in the first world, where you don't want the expense, paperwork, time, of having to deal with the legal system.

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

#66

Post by nepthar »

Based on reading a few articles like this, I think my understanding of blockchain-related tech is different from other folks and I'm kinda confused. Could some kind soul help clear things up?

When I think "blockchain", I basically think of a git branch: history is verifiably immutable and using some external tools like a public rng, one can prove that a block was not created before a certain time.

When I think "distributed ledger/distributed consensus" I think of the practice of using basically properties of statistics to get a bunch of nodes to agree on the state of something.

Neither of those things really seem to make sense as the author's definition of "blockchain". What is he referring to?

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

#67

Post by schoen »

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…

In the second case, couldn't Louis Vuitton also host the associated records itself?

There are several concepts related to this in other areas: provenance, catalogues raisonnés, serial numbers, title registries, pedigree registries, among others. People who make or who deal in rare or expensive things often adopt some of these mechanisms to help answer questions like: which one is this? is it genuine? who owns it? who used to own it? is it stolen?

(There are lots of different threats, but some of these mechanisms help respond to each. Properly identifying and authenticating an individual object may be the hardest problem of all here—but that's potentially less of a database issue than the others.)

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

#68

Post by LiquidSky »

kolinko wrote: post #49
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…

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 sign…

>For example, when you are dealing with multiple small transactions where a potential for fraud on the buyer side is significant.

We already have systems that handle this issue well and have for decades. Why involve the blockchain?

>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.

But the barrier for entry is high in those use cases precisely to prevent exactly the kinds of abuse and problems we've seen in the crypto space. And the blockchain doesn't magically alleviate the obligation to obey laws and regulations. You could try to design a system that circumvents them, but then you're back to the parent's point about illegality.

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

#69

Post by adfgnionio »

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…

>but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data?

The answer is the same to all three questions: the Chinese government.

Post reply on HN