Live data from Hacker News

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

blog.smartdec.net

401–410 of 415 posts

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

#401

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that's where small-claims court comes in. It mostly only costs you your time, you aren't really allowed to bring in a lawyer to argue on your behalf, etc. etc. Depending on your location, the MAXIMUM damages for small-claims court is $5000 to $10,000. The whole system is designed so that smaller issues can be resolved quickly. > And many contract provisions are often not honored in bankruptcy That's literally the…

> But that's where small-claims court comes in. It mostly only costs you your time, you aren't really allowed to bring in a lawyer to argue on your behalf, etc. etc. This is such a US-centric answer it hurts. Small claims court doesn't mean anything when the other entity isn't even in your country. If you and I make a contract and you flake on it then I have no reasonable legal recourse because an international lawsu…

> If you and I make a contract and you flake on it then I have no reasonable legal recourse because an international lawsuit is way too expensive for me.

Okay. And if the same is said about a smart contract, like The DAO, what happens?

https://medium.com/@MyPaoG/explaining-the-dao-exploit-for-be...

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

#402

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.

That's a fairly generalized statement. So just because the world works in a certain way we shouldn't change it?

Have you or anyone else noticed that the way the world works is massively in favor of anyone that has money?

How many tenants got cheated out of $1000 deposit and didn't have legal knowledge or a support system to get the landlord to court?

How many people got fees from Wells Fargo, Sprint, Comcast, PG&E, fuck even Etsy because they had power to pull from their accounts at any time? How many of them got everything back due to them? Fairly and morally?

How many people that DON'T have a massive blogger platform, podcast and wherewithal to start an _effective_ campaign against a multi-national because they simply are not well spoken. They are still cheated by the big guy but no one cares because it's not retweeted by Ariana Grande.

AKA your main point might hold up to 5 to 10% of disputes but hardly supports the notion that it "works". I think your statement should rather be "That's how the world currently operates" and that by no means rules out creating additional ways to operate in the world.

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

#403

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…

Funny thing is, there tends to be immense trust in the underworld because the consequence of betrayal is your life or limb.

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

#404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 prese…

> 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.

I find that unlikely. The volume of social media far out classes that of financial networks. They also have competing concerns.

A blockchain is only secure because it uses up lots of resources to ensure that the network is secure hence it costs money to use the network. Social networks are useful because they are low friction: very easy to use, any time, freely, as much as you want.

Blockchains are like credit card networks in this respect, you (currently) pay 9 cents to have a transaction committed within an hour (or 35 cents for a few minutes), credit card companies offer a similar service in the 20-25 cent range. I don't see anyone paying 20 cents to have a post committed within a few minutes, or even 9 cents to like a post. That just doesn't track. (Let alone the storage space concerns...)

However, a federated social media service (think email) is a much more viable alternative. And it already exists. Such systems could easily publish public cryptographic ledgers, the joining of which would provide one with a state of the network at any given time. Again, no need to pull a block chain with proof of work into this, there is no reason we need to worry about that because trust can come from us knowing other people in the social network.

As a final aside, publishing the entire social network isn't even a feature most people want. Not really. Why do you think Facebook has privacy controls? No one really wants to post their entire social media profile on the web in some sort of provable immutable way.

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

#405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I see as the 'hard to solve' problem isn't the contract. That's difficult but ultimately resolves to logic and proofs of logic. The difficult to resolve problem is enforcing what the contract is trying to measure. It doesn't magically authenticate the state of the real world or objects within it. It can't do things like answer the question: "Did the occupant cause harm or ware beyond normal to a rented unit?" It…

A lot of this stuff is just bootstrapping though. Suppose you have someone designated to identify plumbers, call him Bob. Bob has a public key, and if a plumber, call her Alice, comes to him and proves in the usual meatspace ways that she's a licensed plumber, Bob signs the plumber's public key, along with their name and license number and the date, signature good for a year. Maybe Bob works for the government, maybe…

> so you rely on the state to revoke licenses in demonstrated cases of corruption.

Revoke how? Does the state, or anyone else besides Bob, have the authority to unilaterally modify the blockchain? If so, why don't they just use a central database, since you are forced to trust them anyway?

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

#406
Main point: any statement about world outside of computers can be cryptographically signed and stored in a decentralized immutable store yet still be false.

Also, crypto guarantees cut both ways. Which is more likely, that your account will be illegally taken from you, or that you'll lose your account password? In normal banking systems, the former is very unlikely and the latter is fixable. In crypto coins, the former is impossible (assuming nobody can steal your password, which is untrue) and the latter is unfixable.

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

#407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. LN won’t serve the worlds needs it will take 35 years to open a channel for everyone on earth and another 35 years to close it again, assuming the population doesn’t grow. 2. Coinbase merchants take out fiat like bitpay merchants because their suppliers take real money, and so does the tax man. Holding crypto exposes them to unbelievable forex risk. If they took bitcoin and held it over the last year how on earth…

1. I have to admit, if you are going to be so vehemently angry against anyone who even talks about Bitcoin as being potentially useful, I'd suggest you do at least 5 minutes of googling. Channel Factories -> https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7c... Cool stuff, I doubt you'll actually read it, but there's the link anyway. 2. Whoa look at that -> You can pay your taxes in Ohio in Bitcoin. So appa…

I’m not angry at bitcoin or at you. I’m frustrated seeing intelligent people throw themselves at something that appears to be a pyramid scheme built on an ancap view of the world where we should all just rely on ourselves and the magic of the blockchain to save us all from the tyrany of... everything, I guess? And everyone who knows about it now will be rich! Bolstered by a lack of understanding of how finance works, they go out there and shill systems that are actively user hostile and rife with manipulation. Scammers on every doorstep and transactions are always final. A vote for Bitcoin is a vote for the scammers, the manipulators, the shady exchanges. The uncensorable, decentralized (excluding China of course) deregulated payment network functioning as designed. It’s a beautiful theory that just doesn’t fit the real world.

1. I spend a lot of time learning and reading about Bitcoin and the blockchain -- that's why I don't like it. The technology is fine, it's just a database with hashes. Proof of work dates back to 1997 (22 years ago) with HashCash. Bitcoin is over a decade old. In all that time, nobody has found a good use for blockchain -- at least one that isn't better solved otherwise. Think of what else has happened in 10 years to technology that adds actual value. Remember the iPhone 1 (2007)?

I didn't have to get half way through the abstract to find the problem, and it's the same exact one I pointed out. You still need an on-chain transaction to open a channel ("Instead of one blockchain transaction per channel, each user only needs one transaction to enter a group of nodes") or in this case join a group. Each person needs to do this. There are 7,000,000,000 of us and if we dedicated the entire blockchain (7tx/sec) to opening channels that would take 34 years just to open a channel (or here, join a group) for everyone on earth. The paper you linked references a paper explaining it for you, as #9 in the references [1].

The paper cites being able to reduce on-chain transactions 96% for a group of 20 people with 100 channels between them -- I'm saying we can't even get to 1 person with 1 channel to 1 other person.

2. Big difference between paying your taxes with bitcoin and paying taxes denominated in bitcoin. If you received 1BTC ($19,000) renumeration for your services January 2018 then went to pay your taxes "with Bitcoin" in Ohio April 2019, expect to pay approximately 2BTC ($7600 / 40%) in taxes. That's a 200% tax rate. If you could pay your taxes denominated in Bitcoin you'd be paying 0.4BTC ($1300) -- or 40% of unit of account, 6.8% of value. Make no mistake you're paying in US dollars, they're just providing a convenient forum for exchange. I'd image they'd do the same with a goat exchange if people decided to be equally backwards and everyone wanted to start using goats as payment.

3. Anecdotes aren't really worth much. It's just as irrelevant as my telling you 100% of the places I frequent don't take bitcoin. I don't hold that up though, I look for studies.

4. Re: LocalBitcoins and the bolivars, if they were traded with foreigners, they'd be unequivocally better off with a USD denominated account and a debit card. They'd have saved (up to) 80% of their net worth relative to what they did. But who on earth would take their bolivars? Zero sum.

If they traded it with each other the same amount of net worth was lost because the total number of BTC in Venezuela and the total number of bolivars remained unchanged, all that changed was who had them. No problems were solved by Bitcoin here.

[1] http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/scalingbitcoin/hong-kong/o...

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

#408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. I have to admit, if you are going to be so vehemently angry against anyone who even talks about Bitcoin as being potentially useful, I'd suggest you do at least 5 minutes of googling. Channel Factories -> https://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/a20a865ce40d40c8f942cf206a7c... Cool stuff, I doubt you'll actually read it, but there's the link anyway. 2. Whoa look at that -> You can pay your taxes in Ohio in Bitcoin. So appa…

I’m not angry at bitcoin or at you. I’m frustrated seeing intelligent people throw themselves at something that appears to be a pyramid scheme built on an ancap view of the world where we should all just rely on ourselves and the magic of the blockchain to save us all from the tyrany of... everything, I guess? And everyone who knows about it now will be rich! Bolstered by a lack of understanding of how finance works,…

Btw that VES/BTC chart isn’t adjusted for the 10,000,000% (by next year) inflation rate, so in constant dollar terms I’d wager that BTC/VES volume went down over the period highlighted.

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

#409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Guys, this works. It's literally how the world works. There were people saying the same thing as you before the wheel was invented, and in 1550, and 1800, and 1900, and 1910 (guys, horses shit on the streets and you occasionally contract dysentary. But overwhelmingly you can get from point A to B. Guys, horse-drawn carriages work. It's how the world works!) and 1950 and 1990 and... "This is how the world works" is n…

Do you think 10 years after the wheel's invention, people were still unconvinced by it? Bitcoin has been out since 2008. Over a decade later, the only thing it's been useful for is for masking illegal activity, and speculating wildly. Just because something is new does not mean it's revolutionary. The Segway was in all likelihood a more revolutionary invention than blockchain will ever be.

The computer was invented in the 30s, and the internet in the 80s. People remained "pretty unconvinced" by those technologies for quite a bit longer than 10 years.

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

#410
post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's why I said "intermediary attestations". I did not miss the interface between real world and blockchain. I did not claim that the records would be 100% accurate. What I'm saying is, when audited and we discover that someone provided bad data, we know who that was. That's how fraud claims work in general. Having a nicely packaged up list of who attested to what is nice. That's my point.

So we completely sidestep the difficult problem of ensuring truthful data in the first place but it's okay because we've got a really complex solution for replacing simple cryptographic signatures?

I'm not aware of any cryptographic system that provides immutable timestamps as strong as public blockchain timestamps, but I'd love to hear if I'm wrong.

As a sidenote, burdening blockchain with solving the "truthful data" goal is pretty unfair. In many cases this is an unsolvable problem.

Post reply on HN