Blockchain not needed
Bitcoin/metanet/blacknet is needed
You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
411–415 of 415 posts
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#412Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't conflate "unconvinced" with "couldn't afford".
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#413I'm reminded of the helpful "How to decide if blockchain is right for your project" flowchart ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPFvZuqU8AAeU0C?format=jpg ) from @MalwareTechBlog.
Also these two articles: - Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain, https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-... - and the followup, Blockchain is not only crappy technology but a bad vision for the future, https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustle...
Literally the only use is digital monetary instruments. Maybe "smart contracts." Everything else? Nope.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#414Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> of course there is not And yet you bring it up as an example of how well Ethereum might work. And claim “there are hundreds of other examples”. So what you claimed is false, and there are no other examples. And the avility of Ethereum to provide what you claim is yet to be proven (it was nearly crippled by a friggin kitties game which could fit in its entirety on a low-powered laptop eas it not for Ethereum/blockch…
there is nothing in the world that there are no examples of what are you talking about. examples are theorhetical.
Re: You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work
#415I'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…
> there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior [- illegal transactions]
To start off, the reason cryptocurrencies have survived this long is probably due to the fact that the dark web thrives on it. That said it's certainly not a reason to outlaw it.
What about the situations where the legal system is questionable? Off hand I've read stories about a lot of poker players who've gotten cash confiscated when flying. What about [insert stories here]?
How about a means to store (and transfer) value, where you can be certain - given your measures of security is sound - that no one but you (or multisig) can access it? If I store cash at home I can get robbed. If I own property it can be destroyed (loopholes in insurance policies, betrayal of other forms, military state).
I remember the feeling I had a few years back when I had my own bitcoin in a paper "wallet" (actually a master seed with my personally devised cipher), protected by the (mental) measures of my choosing, it was mine. Yes, that caters well to illegal activities but likewise also empowers individual privacy, as well as removing any political, governmental or other influences. Power to the individual.
It's not the monetary system's role to regulate how people behave in society, merely to facilitate transfer of value. If that transfer method can't be trusted alternatives will spring up. On that note if there are better people on the planet the methods of value transfer matters less. If there was more trust in financial institutions there would be less need for cryptocurrencies. On HN people advocate having backups of backups, but how do you backup your money in the bank? You're trusting them.
Yes, drug lords exist and have existed in the past thanks to anonymous transactions, but... there is corruption in banking systems (offshore accounts) and whatever systems and we should/could question why there are drug lords in the world in the first place. They wouldn't have a place here if things were better organized. Either by more happy people (having less want/need for stimulants, given a bleak outlook on humanity), by giving the people the freedom to explore their minds more freely (psychedelics) or simply (as a step on the way) give the state the power to regulate as opposed to making everything illegal.
I would expect more of HN than to have this as a top comment. Let's just ban cash altogether because the only thing it's useful for is enabling illegal transactions. Sigh. Quite a naive way of looking at things. What you're suggesting is doing what they're doing in China (and US and other countries as well) with the credit ratings of everyone without any chance of living a normal life unless you're subscribed to the system in place. Add hyper surveillance à la mega corps and no one can escape. Please keep the beacon lit for at least some of the measures in place to insure personal freedom.