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

71–80 of 415 posts

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

#71

Post by notahacker »

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

You say that, and then look at the number of companies selling blockchain based services promising exactly that, and enterprises paying for projects...

It's understandable why as well. Pure "digital world" businesses that blockchain can deliver like provably actuarially fair gambling exist, but they're pretty niche.

I'd question whether money can be completely represented without recourse to the outside world - what gives money relatively stable value is the real world enforcement of contracts, debt obligations and taxes. Take those away and whilst your blockchain can validate the integrity of some numbers you hold, you can't guarantee anyone actually exchanges it for anything actually useful in future.

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

#72

Post by schoen »

treis wrote: post #55
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.

This seems clearly true for applications related to censorship resistance and certain properties of money and financial systems (if you explicitly don't want a government to make certain decisions in the systems), but maybe not for many other applications.

For example, is it likely that people don't trust Louis Vuitton to decide whether Louis Vuitton handbags are genuine? Isn't that the definition of a Louis Vuitton handbag being genuine?

In most cases where an institution is empowered to make a decision of some sort, the risk that they will later change their mind arbitrarily doesn't seem to loom very large. (I'd agree that it's great to have mechanisms for detecting this, although regular digital signatures and Merkle trees may suffice.)

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

#73

Post by schoen »

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. >…

> If I sell you [...] a rare in-game skin

So what you're saying is, blockchains can't determine whether or not you really have skin in the game?

:-)

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

#74

Post by AndrewKemendo »

treis wrote: post #55
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.

If you can't find or mutually organize a trusted authority you have much bigger problems than what technology to choose.

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

#75

Post by adfgnionio »

treis wrote: post #55
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.

In the case of supply chain management, you need a trusted central authority regardless. Who ensures the sensors are honest? A computer can't do that. It has to be a legal contract between the truck company and a central authority, backed up by the dreaded guys with guns.

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

#76

Post by tempestn »

Can someone explain this line to me?

"Is it a good idea to put a hash of student diploma digitally signed by several professors on Bitcoin blockchain? Yes."

How exactly would one do that? Is the idea to send a tiny transaction to a made-up wallet, with your hash embedded in the wallet id? Seems like it would need to be pretty small, and would be somewhat of an abuse of the system. Or if that's not it, what exactly is meant by "put a hash of __ on the bitcoin blockchain"?

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

#77

Post by WalterSear »

LiquidSky wrote: post #62
skilgarriff wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Slightly ridiculous. Blockchains enforce the contract on the blockchain.

The contracts don't, and can't, concern themselves with anything that is off the blockchain. Once the ether is in your account, the contract is complete.

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

#78

Post by MusaTheRedGuard »

root_axis wrote: post #64
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.

Anyone can call themselves a "blockchain enthusiast" that doesn't mean they're smart or know what they're doing.

Examples of good thinkers are the guys over at multicoin capital, a crypto focused hedge fund: https://multicoin.capital

I don't agree with everything they invest in, but they have clear, logical theses

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

#79

Post by aboodman »

treis wrote: post #55
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.

People say this because blockchains are currently extremely complex and expensive in exchange for the value prop "don't need to be hosted by a trusted authority". That doesn't mean the value prop doesn't exist - it just means there are better tradeoffs today.

There are tons of cases where groups of entities interact and don't inherently trust each other. That is basically all of trade. In all of these cases, it would be more ideal if no one party had to be a trusted authority.

As soon as it seems simpler and less expensive for blockchains to implement this behavior, they will suddenly become a useful tool for all kinds of applications.

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

#80

Post by gregschlom »

MusaTheRedGuard wrote: post #60
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 co…

I'm not saying: you don't need the blockchain because you shouldn't be doing bad things.

I'm saying: you need the blockchain if and only if you are doing things that are illegal in your country. It's a decision criteria for when you need the blockchain.

I'm making no moral judgement. And there are very good reasons to want to do things that your government deems illegal (for example, donating to a political organization that has been blacklisted)

Post reply on HN