131–140 of 415 posts
I'm reminded of the helpful "How to decide if blockchain is right for your project" flowchart ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPFvZuqU8AAeU0C?format=jpg ) from @MalwareTechBlog.
It seems like log obfuscation is a common tactic used to cover tracks after a break in. Thus it seems like a blockchain could be used in a logging system so that a falsified log would trigger an alert.
Blockchain is a fractional reserve system which can be used as a payment layer. That's it. The whole point of blockchain tech is to create hype and incentivise collaboration towards a shared financially beneficial goal. Saying that blockchain has no use cases is like saying that money has no use cases. It incentivizes, it corrupts, it buys loyalties, it buys positive news coverage - These are the most important use c…
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…
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/arts/design/art-scholars-...
And works with supposedly excellent provenance still end up being repudiated by authentication committees:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2011/double-denied...
Due to the misaligned incentives in the art authentication world, I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that a blockchain would be a good way of tracking records in the artworld, particularly if artists register works directly on it.
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…
With Ethereum you can build systems that are intra-national and connect for example all the real-estate records globally which cannot be done with a MySQL system. There are hundreds other examples
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 exactly. It's anything for which the legal system is not effective.
For example, you can have a perfectly legal contract, but the other party is in a corrupt foreign jurisdiction that would never find in your favor in the event of a breach. Then you can't contract with them because they have no incentive not to breach, without an alternative method of ensuring compliance that doesn't rely on their corrupt government.
You may also have jurisdictions (like the US) where the process may be more fair, but it's unreasonably expensive, so if you're transacting with parties with a high probability of getting into disputes, something that can resolve them programmatically without litigation is an advantage.
Then there are the false positives. You're not a criminal, but you have bad credit or are from a disreputable country etc., so you're treated as one by the government or the rules targeting actual criminals cause companies to not want to do business with you, and you thereby need some alternative way to engage in your legitimate activities.
What you're arguing is that a perfect system of government removes the need for any alternative. But we haven't got a perfect system of government.
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 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'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."