211–220 of 260 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A peer-to-peer distributed ledger isn't needed for decentralization. You can chuck blockchain out of the conversation like that. But then we'd no longer be having a conversation about blockchain.
But we aren't. We're talking about git. We're having a digression from the main topic because git is kinda tangentially related.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Github is not an example of decentralization. Github is the center hub for the vast majority of git-managed projects. The fact that you can fork a repo is not the kind of distributed use we're talking about. Github is still the "default" host for those forked repos, and the identity provider for people working on most software projects. That's centralization.
Github is a completely optional thing though. If it were to die tomorrow, everyone still has the code locally, and code sharing is still very much possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am coming to think that it's precisely the "distributed" bit that nobody really wants. For example, distributed version control systems are often held up as an example of some form of precedent for blockchain-type technologies. But I've never actually seen a truly distributed (in the blockchain sense) deployment of Git. It's technically possible, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Similarly, I'm not sure people ac…
Distributed immutable ledger is astonishingly relevant in a variety of security and financial (and financial security) areas, but good luck explaining to the non-tech execs why they should fund projects using that rather than FOMO on “but blockchain!!!” For purposes of talking w/ execs or boards, there are something like seven yes/no reasonably explainable properties of chains of blocks that toggled some ways give yo…
I'm not so sure about that. IANAL, but I suspect that, at least under US law, a distributed immutable ledger would actually be illegal in many cases. The entire legal environment is set up around the idea that there is a system of record, and that system of record has a single custodian, and that custodian is not just responsible for tending to it, but also someone to whom you can appeal (or sue) for remediation if something goes wrong.
The immutable bit is also often incompatible. There are laws and contracts out there laying out cases where data needs to be deleted - not reverted, not being flagged as no longer relevant, actually deleted - from the record. In the US, the Fair Credit Reporting Act is probably the most familiar example, but there are others.
Yes, we can say that it hasn't taken off because people just don't understand it because it's a complex technical topic. But we should also consider the possibility that the business environment in which we are trying to ininuate ourselves is a complex technical topic, too. And also watch out for Chesterton's Fence.
Similar to how "god of the gaps" arguments work, there's a "god of complexity" phenomenon in tech, where people will project infinite possibilities onto technology they don't understand. Blockchain is a brilliant solution to an extremely rare problem. It lets you do distributed consensus among untrusted nodes in a setting where contributing compute power is economically incentivized (e.g. where there's mining). That…
>> Blockchain is a brilliant solution to an extremely rare problem It's not a rare problem. Fiat currencies don't work for the majority of people. The problem is ubiquitous. We need to separate money from state and blockchain provides a mechanism to do that. Just because fiat works for a handful of rich people, doesn't mean that it works for everyone. Everyone can see that the current system is unfair.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Distributed immutable ledger is astonishingly relevant in a variety of security and financial (and financial security) areas, but good luck explaining to the non-tech execs why they should fund projects using that rather than FOMO on “but blockchain!!!” For purposes of talking w/ execs or boards, there are something like seven yes/no reasonably explainable properties of chains of blocks that toggled some ways give yo…
> Distributed immutable ledger is astonishingly relevant in a variety of security and financial (and financial security) areas I'm not so sure about that. IANAL, but I suspect that, at least under US law, a distributed immutable ledger would actually be illegal in many cases. The entire legal environment is set up around the idea that there is a system of record, and that system of record has a single custodian, and…
A distributed immutable ledger has many uses other than recording voluntary transactions, or even recording things to do with specific people.
For example, such a ledger can be used to create a tamper-proof security-camera footage log. Just hashes of exported video files, locked into a chain at time of export. You can redact the videos themselves (i.e. make all copies of the referenced video unavailable), but you can't change the hash, and so there's no party you can collude with to substitute one video for another. Even if you're a state actor. You either have the videos — which can be proven to be the right videos — or you don't; but you'll never be able to present the wrong videos.
Or, in the same vein, a chain-of-custody log for the contents of a safety deposit box at a bank. Any time someone opens the box, an entry is automatically appended to the log saying what authorization (e.g. access card) was used to open the box. Once again, the fact that the log is distributed on a wider multi-party-controlled system, makes it impossible (or at least impractical) for the bank itself to tamper with the logs to steal something from your box.
These are "finance" / "security" / "financial security" use-cases. But they're not PII. There's no point at which any of this data would ever legally require redaction or purging, because it doesn't relate to a specific client profile. It relates either to metadata of public-point-of-view sensory data capture; or it relates to employee actions against customer accounts, where the mapping back to an individual isn't given in the public log but rather exists in a private database.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: It’s because “blockchain” software is a thing that already exists, but its superclass, “distributed log of signed proofs” software, isn’t a thing that already exists (except in the form of the subclass, blockchain software.) There are tons of use-cases for which a “distributed log of signed proofs” is the perfect fit. Have you got an architecture where nodes independently m…
I am coming to think that it's precisely the "distributed" bit that nobody really wants. For example, distributed version control systems are often held up as an example of some form of precedent for blockchain-type technologies. But I've never actually seen a truly distributed (in the blockchain sense) deployment of Git. It's technically possible, but it just doesn't seem to happen. Similarly, I'm not sure people ac…
The truth is, git provides only a narrow set of capabilities we use for development. Git being decentralized is insufficient. That is why the world uses github (and to lesser degrees bitbucket & gitlab): they provide the collaborative experience, they provide regulation/control/flow across the distributed systems.
There is ongoing & active work to build many of these social protocols ("Pull requests", code comments, issues, &c) in a distributed fashion, under the ForgeFed[1] project. Popular git workspace applications such as Gitea are working towards implementations.
It's been long overdue, but we're filling in the gaps, to make a distributed git possible & interesting. Historically, one of the few & only successful models of distributed/decentralized development has been the Linux kernel itself, which has stuck to using patches sent by email to coordinate the distributed work. But that status quo will soon be changing, or at least, there will be other options, than github or email.
This doesn't seem like a good PR move for Azure in terms of enterprise sales. One of the big selling points of AWS is that they support everything pretty much forever. Azure has now made it clear that they can and will shutdown services with relatively short notice.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Github is not an example of decentralization. Github is the center hub for the vast majority of git-managed projects. The fact that you can fork a repo is not the kind of distributed use we're talking about. Github is still the "default" host for those forked repos, and the identity provider for people working on most software projects. That's centralization.
Github is a completely optional thing though. If it were to die tomorrow, everyone still has the code locally, and code sharing is still very much possible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is common with new technology. It was amazing what was sold under web 2.0. It was amazing what was sold before the dotcom craze. Blockchains are here to stay. Replacing money is probably not a medium term goal but allowing trustless entities to reach an agreement could be interesting. No one has explored it in smaller non-global settings like a classroom where the first one to get the answer wins. Not trusting y…
A classroom has a trusted central authority. Even assuming some kind of educational benefit from students racing to be first, how on earth does blockchain accomplish anything there? I really really hope that all the blockchain hype is from people who got in early and want to pump up the value before they get out. Because otherwise the invented solutions and worse invented problems are too absurd for me to handle.
The race condition could work in a bonus question where the first person to answer correctly takes the bonus marks. Students would have the opportunity to submit answers, get confirmed correct without the teacher needing to manage this.
That central authority is a bottleneck and at times corrupt. We don't trust central authority in government so three different levels of government have to reach an alignment for a law to be passed. Police powers are separate from judigical powers for a reason. Decentralization balances interests.