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

371–380 of 415 posts

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

#371

Post by zubairq »

twic wrote: post #255
shepardrtc wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

SWIFT is a messaging system, not a settlement system. Its also far slower than blockchain, more complex, and more prone to error. I think around 6% of transactions just disappear.

I'd be interested to see actual numbers for transaction volume, latency, and reliability of SWIFT and blockchain in practical use cases. I worked on a payment system using the UK's Faster Payment Scheme a while ago. The SLA for latency is two seconds end-to-end, and is usually much faster than that, was simple enough for a gang of underpaid COBOL programmers to implement it successfully, and didn't have a mechanical…

I used to work for SWIFT. The 6% error rate is incorrect as errors are detected and resent using different methods, so more like 0.0001% error rate. Sometimes SWIFT transfers trillions of dollars in a single day, so yes, it is the largest trading volume in the world

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

#372

Post by Pamar »

shepardrtc wrote: post #190
roywiggins wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"SWIFT was founded in Brussels in 1973 under the leadership of its inaugural CEO, Carl Reuterskiöld (1973–1989), and was supported by 239 banks in fifteen countries. It started to establish common standards for financial transactions and a shared data processing system and worldwide communications network designed by Logica and developed by the Burroughs Corporation. Fundamental operating procedures, rules for liabil…

SWIFT is a messaging system, not a settlement system. Its also far slower than blockchain, more complex, and more prone to error. I think around 6% of transactions just disappear.

"Citation needed" for the 6% figure.

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

#373

Post by arisAlexis »

dmitriid wrote: post #261
arisAlexis wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 block…

of course there is not. and there was no HN when the internet started. Scalability is not the issue, verifiable secure immutable records are where no admin from a third world participating country can alter records as an example. If you forget the bias for a bit you may start to love the possibilities.

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

#374

Post by pbhjpbhj »

ddebernardy wrote: post #291
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Picking on one point here: In your electoral system is there a way to verify your vote was counted. Like a stamped voting slip? I've thought that a good way in an electronic system would be to give you a vote code (maybe a single letter), and a verification code. You'd enter the verification code, the screen would show all candidates/voting options with a "vote code" and you'd verify by finding your vote code matched…

In my electoral system, yes. I'm in Europe and it's a paper ballot. In the US, no in many places. And not being able ask for a recount when there's any degree of suspicion about the outcome is an absolute disgrace IMHO. As to the other point you raised, you may want to check this video, which outlines research that tears your hopes apart: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iit5WdLYwns And per my initial comment, if you…

>if you can access your vote through a code, then your vote or that of others can be bought //

Isn't that the status quo, currently it can be bought but no one can verify; under my system it can be verified by the person in the poll both.

If someone paid you then you give them the "vote code" that corresponded, for you, at the time you voted, they falsely verify and you can still actually verify - in most votes just be remembering one letter. It's two factor with deniability because the second factor is only in your memory.

I'm in UK, but have never come across "proof of counting" in a vote, where are you, how does that work?

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

#375

Post by Too »

pjc50 wrote: post #113
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…

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)

GDPR doesn't automatically mean right to remove any information. Transactions required for legal reasons, ie money laundering prevention and purchase disputes, can (must) still be kept.

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

#376

Post by arcticbull »

Skunkleton wrote: post #319
arcticbull wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if you are dealing drugs, and the judge says to hand over the funds, you better believe that no amount of "blockchain" will keep those funds under your control.

Hahaha agreed

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

#377

Post by afiori »

shrimpx wrote: post #349
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…

We are talking about ownership, which of course doesn't matter in your example because you don't own the buses or the stations. If you own a house, where's the record? The title is with an insurance company. Why? Because your ownership of this house can be questioned at any time since there's no equivocal record. It's recorded in a bunch of "databases", some of which you and your insurance company may not know exist.

Blockchain offer no satisfactory solutions to this, houses can change, people can lose access to identification, people can be evicted, people can make mistakes. The last thing I would want is to be evicted with (by design) no chance to get my house back because my computer got hacked.

I cannot understand how at the same time lots of people are worried about "superintelligent machines eating the world" and proposing to remove humans from all important decisions in our lives.

Next step is to build a social graph on blockchain?

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

#378

Post by afiori »

tastyfreeze wrote: post #301
bunderbunder wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which answer none of the point presented.

Financial markets are heavily regulated for a good reason, Bitcoin need to find a good way to "clone" that if it want to be used for actual finance.

Errors can come from outside the system, any kind of consensus protocol cannot solve that. So cryptocoins do not have any particular advantage here.

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

#379

Post by Faark »

audunw wrote: post #212
turtlecloud wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the trusted authority is the Chinese government? would you still keep your same opinion? At the core of it, it is a transfer of power from larger organizations to the people.

> What if the trusted authority is the Chinese government? would you still keep your same opinion? It's not about how nice the trusted authority is. It's about the value the trusted authority provides. If you're doing business in China, although you might not entirely trust the Chinese government, and might not like them, they'll still provide more value than a "trust-less" system. China is not a lawless state after…

> It's not though, if there's no actual transfer of real power.

Blockchains are hard to modify and as such, can act as a form of checks and balances against those trying to change history. You're kind of saying powerful entity won't allow checks and balances and somehow conclude they are unnecessary. That is ... unfounded.

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

#380

Post by fandango »

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…

I'm not a blind supporter of blockchains, but your view is a gross simplification. Let's replace your words "the blockchain" with "privacy":

"I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where privacy 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".

I like to be able to buy stuff from people anonymously. Not because it's an illegal transaction, but because it's nobody's fucking business what I buy. In this age of marketing and surveillance data mining, it's better to be safe than sorry. Also, what's legal now might become illegal in a future administration.

Note that bitcoin or blockchains in general are not fully anonymous perse. Some are pseudo-anonymous (because addresses can still be linked to persons), some are almost 100% anonymous, such as Monero. See it as cash over the internet. Permissionless, tamperproof and private.

Post reply on HN