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

191–200 of 415 posts

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

#191

Post by naasking »

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…

> Guys, this works. It's literally how the world works.

There's no question that it works. The question that blockchain-like solutions seek to explore, is whether it works better than a technological solution which can eliminate most of the layers you describe.

The world is deeply complex, more complex than any single human can understand. If operating in the world can be simplified to the point of being understandable by individuals, or if the size of the foundations you have to trust or rely on can be made significantly smaller, that could be worth it.

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

#192

Post by doubletgl »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #7
maratd wrote: post #4

Not every engineering solution needs to make sense exclusively within the engineering domain. Some engineering solutions have purely business justifications. For example, take a look at the Tesla Model X and its Falcon Wing Door. It is very clearly a stupid design from an engineering perspective, but is sufficiently unique to have its own name. It also very obviously draws everyones attention when used and draws atte…

Good points, as it were, in 10 years when your "Falcon Wing Door" breaks because it's got a fraction the engineering time and lessons learned over 100 years of car door mechanisms you're going to be envious of people with those boring old regular doors. In 10 years when your blockchain is no longer supported by the developers and your new team has no idea how to manage it, it's showing it's age, it's breaking, you're…

Well that might or might not align with the short-term business goals of someone. I agree that's stupid und not sustainable, but people have different goals. Like quaterly sales on Falcon Wing Doors and the bonus at the end of the year, and then you move on.

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

#193

Post by ddebernardy »

greglindahl wrote: post #153
ddebernardy wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You don't "need" to offer these guarantees. Personally, I'm happy with paper ballots.

Me too. In large part because paper ballots offer these guarantees.

But there's a swath of elections and voting going on (in universities, within political parties or unions, etc., but also official elections in parts of the US or in Estonia) that that use e-voting to cut costs or improve participation. They currently lack these guarantees yet those elected end up in charge of millions in budget.

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

#194

Post by basch »

raiyu wrote: post #159
basch wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems like gatekeeping. I think blockchains will make great accounting systems for firms working together. Construction is a prime example. You can have 10 companies working together to maintain one book for a large project, and then eliminate the need to be audited. The technology can replace manual processes that happen after the data is placed in the database, to verify the data should have been entered. And…

Don't see how this happens. How do you verify the work? It works in a purely electric fashion which is what Bitcoin is but you still need someone to verify things in the real world. Audits exist so that third parties can verify the books. Literally in a blockchain you just put in whatever you want how did you verify that that is what happened in the real world?

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/announcing-microsoft-...

the participants audit each other real time, one party cant cook its books, if youre all writing one shared book. both parties agreeing to work being done and pressing "this work was done" or a camera watching for the work being done, would be a prerequisite for the task being marked as complete in the system.

things like enron/toshiba happen when companies are maintaining multiple sets of books, one they present to the public, and others hidden in private.

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

#195

Post by UncleEntity »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #7
maratd wrote: post #4

Not every engineering solution needs to make sense exclusively within the engineering domain. Some engineering solutions have purely business justifications. For example, take a look at the Tesla Model X and its Falcon Wing Door. It is very clearly a stupid design from an engineering perspective, but is sufficiently unique to have its own name. It also very obviously draws everyones attention when used and draws atte…

Good points, as it were, in 10 years when your "Falcon Wing Door" breaks because it's got a fraction the engineering time and lessons learned over 100 years of car door mechanisms you're going to be envious of people with those boring old regular doors. In 10 years when your blockchain is no longer supported by the developers and your new team has no idea how to manage it, it's showing it's age, it's breaking, you're…

> Good points, as it were, in 10 years when your "Falcon Wing Door" breaks because it's got a fraction the engineering time and lessons learned over 100 years of car door mechanisms you're going to be envious of people with those boring old regular doors.

Yep, which is why I've even given up on these newfangled door things and got myself a motorcycle -- there's millenia of "technology" behind (dis)mounting horses so I should be safe during the car door apocalypse.

And, honestly, Tesla doors are probably as technologically advanced as a minivan hatchback.

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

#196

Post by notahacker »

vpmpaul wrote: post #128
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…

> It's literally how the world works. So the world works perfectly in your opinion? The good thing about blockchain is it lowers the cost bar for crazy expensive business legalize. It of course needs more work but a proper smart contract setup placed in front of a judge leaves little need for a dozen lawyers and business consultants to see the intent of the contract. The main issue is that the current very expensive…

Except, of course, that as the article points out, the courts provide virtually all the value in preventing clients from cheating the auditing systems, or ensuring that a correctly delivered package actually has contents fit for purpose.

And if your contract is only the code, you've got a big problem in making your case that tampering with the oracle or sending an empty box is an act of bad faith on the other party's part, and much more expensive lawyers to interpret it...

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

#197

Post by shepardrtc »

bunderbunder wrote: post #181
shepardrtc wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what if two banks are transferring money between themselves? Which bank owns the database? Why should the other bank trust that database?

I can't speak to banks, but I have some personal experience with this sort of thing in the case of trading. I'm guessing it's at least somewhat similar to how it works among banks. All the big players have got real-time feeds they're sharing with each other to keep track of who's made what transactions, and they're constantly reconciling them against each other, to make sure that everyone's looking at the same pictur…

> All the big players have got real-time feeds they're sharing with each other to keep track of who's made what transactions, and they're constantly reconciling them against each other, to make sure that everyone's looking at the same picture.

That is exactly what blockchain is. It is literally doing that.

> None of this is strictly necessary, because there is a central source of truth that you can rely on.

But who is running that? And why do you trust them not to change things around every so often?

> it works a lot like how a blockchain would work

Except there's no central source of truth because no one trusts anyone. Which is why its so strong. There's no need to trust.

> The only difference is, nobody's bothering with all that crypto stuff, because all it would do is make the whole thing more expensive

That's what makes blockchain immutable. You can't alter it without an enormous amount of resources. And even then, the actions of the rest of the network work to discourage that sort of thing. In PoW, everyone else is checking the non-altered data, and in consensus, everyone else has already agreed on non-altered data.

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

#198

Post by SI_Rob »

Blockchainism doesn't work, in the long term, for one simple reason: people want technology to give them leverage over their environment (which includes over their peers), not to undermine the leverage they already have. People pay lip service to the doctrine of decentralization, until they find an advantage to exploit that makes them the center of it.

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

#199

Post by zby »

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…

"Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems." - mostly by hand waving. The blockchain model works in the case of cryptocurrencies - because it is subsidized massively by the block rewards. It is very elegant solution - every party can join the system and leave when it wants, no need for any contracts. It is also very surprising that this can be done and that ignited the imagination, but none of the non-currency blockchain projects that I have heard about want to use that model - because of the enormous cost. They want something called 'private blockchains' with no PoW or any other mechanism relying on coin minting - but if the blockchain maintenance is not subsidized by new coins - then you need contracts for that. And it gets much less elegant. Blockchains are also very complex systems with huge attack surfaces, because they are build around complex incentives structures. Private blockchains don't have the elegance of the public, free to access for everyone blockchains, but they still have the complexity.

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

#200

Post by homero »

lawn wrote: post #160
homero wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only application i can think of is proving something existed at a certain date by putting the hash in the blockchain. Op says it won't help authorship since earlier real author can claim he didn't use the blockchain but it's still helpful to prove something simply existed.

For example: You find a security vulnerability in some applications. You want to make an anonymous disclosure but you want to be able to prove you knew about it at a certain time. So you create the message "I John Doe has found the vulnerability ..." and add the hash to the blockchain. You can now definitely prove that you knew about it and had documented it at a certain timestamp before the disclosure.

Exactly, only thing a blockchain is good at and very hard to do without a blockchain. Even if you tell a lawyer or something, you can never prove it 100%.
Post reply on HN