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

101–110 of 415 posts

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

#101

Post by tempestn »

fortenforge wrote: post #85
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/

Thanks. After digging into the FAQ there, the answer is that the data is stored in the 'OP_RETURN' code of an unspendable transaction. (Although some bitcoin is still spent on processing the transaction.)

The OP_RETURN code was introduced by the Bitcoin core developers to address (but not necessarily endorse) the increasing desire of people to store non-financial data. The code signifies that an output is provably unspendable, allowing transactions to be pruned from the UTXO database.

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

#103

Post by acqq »

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?

One needs no blockchain to make a guarantee that a cancellation of the payment can’t be performed.

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

#104

Post by BjoernKW »

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…

> For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution.

Only if that contract is reasonably enforceable and all parties involved trust the party that controls the database - if there's such a single party controlling the database at all.

The most compelling use case in terms of supply chain management doesn't necessarily involve storing data from sensors or other IoT devices. It's doing away with the paperwork (customs documents, bills of lading, for example) involved in shipping physical goods and the friction it causes: https://www.maersk.com/en/news/2018/06/29/maersk-and-ibm-int...

I'm not sure if this is still the case but some time ago I read about an example where the paperwork involved in shipping a 20 ft container from Shanghai to Rotterdam was more expensive than the actual physical shipment of the container.

A blockchain solution could potentially help with reducing that cost. A simpler, database-based solution of course could do, too. However, there are numerous parties involved in the process not all of whom necessarily trust each other. A blockchain-based infrastructure could provide a common protocol everyone can agree on.

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

#105

Post by jayd16 »

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…

The concept at question isn't really illegality as much as alegality (which is not a word that exists). Which is to say, the use case where no legal jurisdiction exists or is ineffectual. I suppose anarchy would be the proper term.

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

#106

Post by skilgarriff »

gregschlom wrote: post #80
MusaTheRedGuard wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 organizat…

I can send 1 bitcoin from myself living in Minnesota to my friend living in Japan for the equivalent of $0.46.

That's an improvement over the existing system. I don't have to trust anyone in between to get my money to him.

How would that be as possible and as "trustless" without blockchain?

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

#107

Post by yahyaheee »

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…

Yep, you could go as far as to argue that criminalization of drugs is a major contributor to global warming.

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

#108

Post by pjc50 »

golergka wrote: post #93
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…

That's exactly what I've been writing under every blockchain thread on HN for the last two years: the only real need that blockchain solves is buying drugs. It hasn't taken over US and Europe yet (I presume because of progress by the legalization movement), but in Russia and CIS, there are no drug dealers that you meet anymore: anything you buy, you buy anonymously, through Tor and Bitcoin, without ever meeting any r…

That's interesting to know, I would have thought there was more physical organizaed crime there.

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

#109

Post by lmm »

ddebernardy wrote: post #96
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…

Potentially legit use-case: electronic voting. In this scenario, you need to offer a number of guarantees. Chiefly: 1. Is my vote anonymous? (If not perfectly, owing to low level timestamps or transaction ids that can get cross-referenced with other data sources, at least for all practical intents?) 2. Can I be sure my vote got tallied the way I voted? 3. If I'd like to verify the result, is there a tamper-proof elec…

Electronic voting wants an append-only/log-structured distributed database, but the certifiers can't be anonymous (otherwise anyone can just run a "polling station" and submit whatever "votes" they want). You'd want votes to be signed according to some centralised PKI infrastructure. And at that point there's no need for "mining" and what you have isn't blockchain.

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

#110

Post by pjc50 »

aboodman wrote: post #99
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…

> a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Do you believe that this is a permanent state, or a temporary one? Is there a potential blockchain-like thing that could exist which would be better than a database and a contract? Because to me, the current system leaves room for improvement: - resolving conflicts across jurisdictions is extremely expensive - resolving conflicts even within one jur…

The blockchain doesn't resolve disputes, it rules them out of scope. The response from blockchain advocates to vendor fraud is "caveat emptor". The dispute is still there.
Post reply on HN