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

301–310 of 415 posts

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

#301

Post by tastyfreeze »

bunderbunder wrote: post #284
tastyfreeze wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if a lowly peasant like me wants to synchronize with the big trading firms' feeds? Do I need to sell a kidney to play on the same field? Blockchain does exactly this without everybody having to sort out discrepancies. Everybody getting the same picture is built in. Just the possibility of there being discrepancies in the ledgers you described would have me looking for a better way. I would much rather have t…

> And what if a lowly peasant like me wants to synchronize with the big trading firms' feeds? It's all pretty highly regulated, and you'd need a license before you're allowed to even think about hooking directly into an exchange. If you've got lowly peasant money to work with, it would be much more cost effective to go through the retail channels, just like every other person who isn't a corporation. > Blockchain doe…

Nobody said proof-of-work. Bitcoin is not the only game in town. Ledger consensus can be reaches without wasting resources on a proof-of-work algorithm.

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

#302

Post by deif »

danielmg wrote: post #34
dangero wrote: post #31

I've spent a lot of time doing consulting around blockchains for fortune 500 companies. Most technology choices are not a need. You can use MongoDB or MySQL in most cases. There are places where MongoDB has benefits, just as there are cases where a permissioned, immutable record has benefits. It's not a silver bullet, but it can add trust. This article seems to miss that creating immutable records of intermediary att…

The big problem with these kind of arguments is that is misses the interface between the real world and the blockchain. Say I have a blockchain that tracks births and deaths. Now if I see a record on there I can be assured it hasn't been tampered with. But that tells me nothing about how it was created - was the person entering the data acting with malfeasance? All blockchain does is audit the data after its creation…

This criticism is valid but it's not a problem blockchain is trying to solve. It merely acts as a way to have immutable records. Regardless of if you use a blockchain solution or not, the fact that real world corruption or ignorance can lead to rogue data is an issue that exists in both cases.

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

#303

Post by xlc0212 »

I am sad about all the hates of the blockchain technology. I do agree that most of the blockchain products are hype and have no real use cases, but that doesn't mean the blockchain technology is completely useless.

Disclaimer: I work for a company building a blockchain ecosystem.

It is not the silver bullet that magically solves all the problems, but it does improves few areas compare to other technologies, which are decentralization and distribution.

Distribution is a mostly solved problem as we have many distributed database available so I won't go into details about it.

Decentralization, is the core attribute of any blockchain technologies. No single entity needs to be trusted, instead the user have freedom to decide who to trust. In terms of currency, user do no need to trust a bank. He get to decide to choose which wallet app he trust (which itself is not an easy decision), which node implementation he trust, which blockchain protocol he trust. Or alternatively he may be able to create his own implementation if there are no reputable implementations available. This is not the case of banks. I am forced to use whatever mobile app the bank offers. I can't use an alternative implementation (at least no banks in my country allows). It have very limited (most of the time, zero) extensibility and customizability. I can't simply create a bank because I don't trust other banks. As a user, I don't have a choice.

Blockchain technology does not solve the trust issue (track operator can fool the sensor to make it report false information), but it provides full transparent and allow user to choose who he trusts.

No blockchain can't prevent dishonest seller make a copy of a real bottle with a token and fill with low quality wine. But user can see who issues this token and able to decide never buy wine from this sellers again. The problem is still not solved, but you cannot say blockchain does not improve the situation here. Yes centralized technology can help as well, but the user have to trust the centralized technology provider and the wine seller. In this case the centralized technology provider will have a large leverage on both the seller and customer. And we know it can be bad if a single entity have too much power (e.g. Facebook, Google).

Yes, there are too many hypes on blockchain technologies. No, blockchain technologies are not useless. It gives the power back to consumer, instead of controlled by a few large entity.

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

#304

Post by skilgarriff »

arcticbull wrote: post #283
skilgarriff wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are assuming they can't pay for services in Bitcoin - which they can. There are a number of things that currently accept Bitcoin, and that number is only growing imo.

>> number is only growing IMO Please cite sources to justify your opinion because every graph I've seen has accepance going down.

I don't have any graphs as like I said it's just my opinion. I'm really only basing it off of 4 things.

1. The general excitement around Lightning Network on Twitter with Jack and tippin.me, as well as this website: https://lightningnetworkstores.com/

2. Coinbase's reported 48,000 merchants/partners reported here: https://www.coinbase.com/clients?locale=en-US

3. I frequent similar places everyday - 2 out of the 3 places that I frequent almost everyday are now accepting btc within the past 3 months - My coffee shop and bar.

4. Musing about Venezuela from crypto podcasts, and articles.

I'll admit I'm biased as I do think it's a good invention, and tend to support Bitcoin. Despite that, I am open minded and would happily check out any information that would propose things are tending in the opposite direction.

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

#305

Post by warkdarrior »

naasking wrote: post #266
kosievdmerwe wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And how do you trust those third-party tools? How do you know they are not colluding with one smart-contract writer to steal your money?

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

#307

Post by skilgarriff »

gnopgnip wrote: post #286
skilgarriff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The real cost is much higher than that, because you are not paid in bitcoin in the US, and your friend in Japan cannot spend bitcoin to buy food or pay rent. You also have to trust multiple entities along the way. You can send money to Japan using moneygram, or transferwise, or a number of other services for a lower all in cost.

In fact I am paid in Bitcoin -> On my weekends I accept code bounties for small amounts of Bitcoin for fun. I've used that Bitcoin to buy coffee at my local coffee shop and have lunch with my friend in Japan at restaurants that accept Bitcoin (which is actually what got me into it in the first place).

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

#308

Post by SilasX »

snowwrestler wrote: post #278
SilasX wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you see how that part was marked as an edit? It was added after my reply. Furthermore, it reinforced my original point that it's really not all that reassuring that the (slow-moving) legal system will enforce contracts, because it's an expensive process, and you need other protocols on top of that in order for trade with untrusted parties to work. As of the edit, the parent seems to agree. So maybe my comment was…

The threat of the legal system is a useful spur for resolving contractual disputes, but most disputes are resolved without engaging the legal system. One of my frustrations with discussions of blockchain is how quickly it diverges from reality. Most financial disputes today are resolved without a lawsuit or a prosecution, which I think you know. And transacting $5 via blockchain today will involve 3rd parties with wh…

That’s why I never said “you have to use bitcoin because courts are too expensive”. That’s an implication you made up out of whole cloth because you never considered that I wrote my comment before the edit.

As it happens — and not that it matters to you — I agree that the small-transaction-with-untrusted-party case is not a good use of blockchain.

I was only objecting to the OP’s implication that courts are sufficient to ward off all contractual violations. As of the edit, the OP clarified s/he didn’t mean that, and so I’m in agreement with him/her, but that apparently doesn’t stop you from lecturing me as if I weren’t.

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

#309

Post by skilgarriff »

roenxi wrote: post #288
skilgarriff wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The $0.46 figure is deceiving though; at the moment the cost of running the blockchain is being paid for by the 4% inflation rate. That cost is being masked by the high volatility and speculative forces controlling the bitcoin price, so you aren't really paying it. At some point, miners aren't going to be paying for themselves by inflating the monetary supply, and then the cost of what they are doing is going to rise…

I don't disagree with you at all -> In fact most people who I read about in the space actually want high transaction fees.

I think that's what makes Lightning Network very exciting. I've used it a few times, and it's a very pleasant experience although definitely still early - only has a capacity of about 3 million at the moment.

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

#310

Post by stouset »

treis wrote: post #55
melkiaur wrote: post #3

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 think most uses can be solved by a simple database hosted by a trusted authority People say this in every blockchain related thing that pops up on HN but it excludes literally the only legitimate use case for a blockchain. That being the scenario where you don't have or don't want to rely on a trusted authority.

> That being the scenario where you don't have or don't want to rely on a trusted authority.

This doesn't even remotely solve the problem.

If someone can get a 51% attack, you now have a trusted authority. If you have a cabal of developers who are implementing your blockchain (and who the overwhelming majority of users will follow if they decide to fork), you have a trusted authority.

Post reply on HN