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

261–270 of 415 posts

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

#261

Post by dmitriid »

arisAlexis wrote: post #136
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…

your vision is extremely short-sighted bordering resistance to change. 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

Mythical examples, of course.

There’s no system built in Ethereum that provides what you cite as an example.

And all of the world’s real edtate records would probably easily fit into a non-optimized MySQL database (I’m not even talking about more powerful databases). Because there are at most a few hundred million such records. Even if there’s a billion, it’s nothing for a modern database (and would cripple any blockchain solution).

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

#262

Post by [deleted] »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #246
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In other words, anything illegal. 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 d…

If you have a digital system that can handle disputes (by dispensing penalties say), how will it handle the other party lying about what happened in the real world? How would the other party handle you lying about what happened in the real world?

[deleted]

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

#263

Post by golergka »

pjc50 wrote: post #108
golergka wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There's none, police runs all of it.

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

#264

Post by Swenrekcah »

roywiggins wrote: post #216
Swenrekcah wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately not every country has a small claims system. Also, I’m not entirely sure how etherum contracts work but if using them means money is transferred automatically upon objectivly measured completion, then I would very much like that even if I did have access to a small claims court.

> I’m not entirely sure how etherum contracts work but if using them means money is transferred automatically upon objectivly measured completion That's the problem right there- defining "objectively measured completion" in such a way that the contract can act on.

Yes, I can imagine that would be difficult.

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

#265

Post by jfk13 »

tchaffee wrote: post #254
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…

Bitcoin is a good backup currency for travel. I tend to use my regular bank card, but I've been in situations where none of my bank cards work at the local ATM. I know the article is about blockchain in general. But I think it's worth pointing out a legal and good use case that might not be obvious to people who don't travel.

And how often do you find, when your cards don't work, that the local coffee shop, hotel, or train station accepts bitcoin?

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

#266

Post by naasking »

kosievdmerwe wrote: post #256
Barrin92 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you're not making anything simpler. There is a reason we have lawyers and courts and insurers and whatever middle men are supposed to be cut out, and that is because contracts, and insurance and law are hard, and nobody wants to write 200 smart contracts a day where one mistake empties your wallet in unrecoverable ways. These institutions exist because division of labour and trusted institutions are a way to hand…

Also if you get forced at gun point to sign a smart contract giving your money away (or say a company which takes longer to transfer), what would be your recourse in a trustless world? There's no recourse for deliberate fraud, sure you could read a contract before signing it and know exactly what it does, but you can hide surprising behaviors in innocent looking code. The Underhanded C Challenge ( http://www.underhan…

That's why smart contract languages should be simple and analyzable by third-party tools and provide statically verifiable guarantees that are readable by ordinary humans.

That's also why current smart contract languages are largely failures.

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

#267

Post by tchaffee »

jfk13 wrote: post #265
tchaffee wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a good backup currency for travel. I tend to use my regular bank card, but I've been in situations where none of my bank cards work at the local ATM. I know the article is about blockchain in general. But I think it's worth pointing out a legal and good use case that might not be obvious to people who don't travel.

And how often do you find, when your cards don't work, that the local coffee shop, hotel, or train station accepts bitcoin?

All you need is one place willing to accept it and give you local cash. I also usually bring USD because there is usually someone in every country who wants that. But securing physical cash is a hassle and if Bitcoin became more widespread I'd stop bringing USD.

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

#268

Post by strfrthwb »

SolarNet wrote: post #155
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…

Blockchains have been overloaded by a bunch of people bringing modern technology to ancient industries as a sort of buzzword. So to an extent you are right the author's definition is narrow, and on the other hand the author is right in that their narrow definition is the correct one. Blockchains are generally defined by the original paper for bitcoin: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf these would have a couple of key p…

> The only reason one needs a block chain is if they are making a currency.

I agree with that. Besides, if some particular blockchain succeeds as a currency, it will inevitably host a social networking protocol where the whole network's state (e.g. who follows whom, who likes what posts etc.) is always available to anyone interested. That will let many various social networks flourish, and all of them will just present the same data differently. For prototypes check memberapp dot github dot io or memo dot cash, or peepeth dot com.

And that makes sense if you think for a minute. Social networking is the basic skill of every human, and small social networks (50-150 people) existed for hundreds of thousands years. Once we transitioned to agricultural based society, we had to develop financial technology to sustain growth and scale the society to billions of people. The basic technology needed to do finance is obviously writing, so for the past five and a half thousands years we existed in a society where we write to centralised medium, whether it is a clay table hosted by a temple or a visa datacenter. Blockchains change that, so that we can write to a shared medium to do financial transactions and eventually form more honest and opens social networks. Once social networks fuse with financial networks, that is kinda nuclear fusion. What we will have then -- let's call it civil network -- is extremely powerful technology of free expression and trade. Civil is, first of all, for civilisation, as writing is what makes civilisation possible, and new technology of writing (blockchain) is what allows civilisation to transition to a new level.

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

#269

Post by root_axis »

MusaTheRedGuard wrote: post #78
root_axis wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

Every enthusiast has their own ideas about what qualifies as "knowing what you're doing". Nobody in the enthusiast community can agree on any of it.

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

#270

Post by arcticbull »

bunderbunder wrote: post #81
adwn wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 ra…

In some respects this is particularly useful in a criminal setting due to the US legal systems doctrine of un-clean hands. You can't sue your drug dealer for failing to deliver as agreed, for instance. As such, the blockchain is effectively the stand-in as you can't get sued by your counterparty over illegal transactions anyways, and the judge won't order you to reverse them.
Post reply on HN