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

81–90 of 415 posts

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

#81

Post by bunderbunder »

adwn wrote: post #52
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…

> 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.

Moreover, blockchain isn't even allowed to be a satisfactory answer to all those problems, except when you're operating in an extra-legal environment.

Because, if a court decides that a transaction was illegal and orders you to reverse it, answering, "But the blockchain. . . !" is a great way to land yourself in jail.

Which, granted, plenty of anarchists and criminals have moral or practical reasons why they would rather operate in an extra-legal environment. But here we come to the reason why skipping the "as a..." line in your user stories is such an anti-practice: Those are two very specific user profiles. Most the rest of us would like to see QuadrigaCX's clients get their money back.

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

#82

Post by gammateam »

nsxwolf wrote: post #51
SilasX wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So you mean a system could exist to lower costs for some parties?

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

#83

Post by jcranmer »

nepthar wrote: post #66

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 "distr…

Blockchain these days is mostly a hype train terminology. There are three components that come together to make a blockchain, but people will often call their technology blockchain if it meets only some of theses:

1. Merkle tree or some other cryptographic append-only technology. (This is really old, by the way).

2. Proof-of-work. (This was, to my knowledge, first proposed as an anti-spam measure, which incidentally went nowhere because most spammers "borrow" other people's computers for free, and so it doesn't inconvenience them in the slightest).

3. Achieving consensus by saying that he who did the most work is right. (This, again to my knowledge, was actually the main innovation that Bitcoin brought to the table).

Many people pitch things only having the Merkle tree as being blockchain technology, because blockchain is in and Merkle trees are so 20th century technology.

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

#84

Post by jVinc »

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?

> Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems.

What problems? I mean your arguing like something like public transportation is an impossibility without blockchain backing because: "Who owns the stations, who enforces the schedules and who owns the actual busses?"

Those are not problems. They are all just questions that are always insanely easy to answer in the specific case.

With your banking credits, who owns the database? the bank, who enforces the contracts? the legal system? And who owns the actual data? Depending on law, there's ownership relations between yourself and the bank.

You an way to many crypto proponents are arguing like ownership rights, legal systems and databases don't exist outside of blockchain based solutions.

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

#85

Post by fortenforge »

tempestn wrote: post #76

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…

You probably want to read https://www.blockcerts.org/guide/

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

#86

Post by sanderjd »

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.

I frequently see commercials that must have cost millions of dollars to create and place that make the opposite argument. If what you're saying is true, the whole industry is just selling snake-oil, and (I think?) people are buying it. The more likely scenario, it seems to me, is that lots of these people actually believe in good faith that this is actually useful technology. If you assume that's the case, it makes sense for people to continue pointing out why that may not be true.

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

#87

Post by gregschlom »

gammateam wrote: post #82
nsxwolf wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So you mean a system could exist to lower costs for some parties?

While at the same time increasing the collective cost for everybody else? (ie: wasting energy).

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

#88

Post by [deleted] »

dnautics wrote: post #65
skilgarriff wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#89

Post by hnbroseph »

melkiaur wrote: post #19
danielmg wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It could be solved, but is it really ? Shall I remind you of this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_horse_meat_scandal#UK_Inv... The blockchain doesn't offer a technological solution that couldn't be done with a centralized authority (I particularly like the way passports rfid reading involves certificates signed by each country). But it offers means to achieve that even if nobody safe enough wants to host the bloo…

ot, but even as i would probably be a little dismayed to learn my burger wasn't made of what i thought it was... it's kind of amusing that horse meat causes a stir while cow meat doesn't it's all just a matter of what's normalized i guess.
Post reply on HN