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

Post by Skunkleton » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 12:43 AM UTC

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…

Post by Skunkleton » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 12:48 AM UTC

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.

Post by Skunkleton » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 12:51 AM UTC

cbg0 wrote: post #189

pjc50 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Immutable data structure + GDPR right to correct or remove information = ? (You can sort of get away with it if it's b2b only or a legal requirement to audit, but that limits the use cases further)

You can store hashes in the blockchain for auditing, you don't need to store the actual data.

Post by pnw_hazor » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:02 AM UTC

shepardrtc wrote: post #116

jVinc wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? > Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. What problems? I mean your arguing like something like public transportation is an impossibility without blockchain backing because: "Who owns the stations, who enforces the schedules and who owns the actual busses?" Those are not problems. They are all just quest…

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

Post by JumpCrisscross » Sat, Feb 23, 2019, 1:06 AM UTC

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…