Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

vitalik.ca

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 465 posts

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#401

Post by puranjay »

BigBubbleButt wrote: post #257
puranjay wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that standard, majority of Wall Street has no use case either, since much of the money is made entirely on speculation. Is betting on whether oil price will go up or down really that much of a use case? Unless you count making money as not enough of a use case. I give up though. HN will willfully ignore crypto and miss out not only on life changing money, but one of the few places in tech that is still fun and exc…

> Unless you count making money as not enough of a use case. So then you're agreeing that the only real use case for crypto is speculation, and not something normal people should care about. > By that standard, majority of Wall Street has no use case either, since much of the money is made entirely on speculation. I think most educated people would agree that Wall St is a drain on society the same as targeted ads. Th…

Right now, if I want to invest in US stocks, I have to go through a handful of local brokers. They want a minimum of 10k inr in the trading account. I have to clear kyc and get my account approved. Once approved, they can shut down the account anytime for any reason.

And all of these are recent developments - until a couple of years ago, it wasn’t even possible to invest in US stocks.

Alternatively, I can buy tokenized versions of popular stocks. This will be an erc-20 token that I will have full custody of at all times. I do not have to get “approved” or have a minimum amount in my account. I can be an investor in, say, AAPL with any amount of money from any part of the world. Unlike my own local stock markets that are filled with insider trading and subpar companies, I get to invest in and gain wealth from a more competitive market - without ever needing anyone’s permission.

Do you consider financial inclusivity a bad thing? Would you say that having control over your own money and removing gatekeepers is good?

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#404

Post by ric2b »

Robotbeat wrote: post #116
jeremycarter wrote: post #16

Blockchain, Decentralization and Smart Contracts have had nearly a decade to prove their value and disrupt the marketplace. So far nothing but whitepapers, pipe dreams and exit scams - nothing my mother can use. What's the point? Nobody is using crypto as an alternative to fiat. Prove me wrong.

Decentralization is good, but it’s almost by definition not profitable. It’s in centralization that you get profit (pre-mining is a bit like centralization). BitTorrent: good, somewhat decentralized. Not super profitable.

By definition? Can you expand?

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#405

Post by splintercell »

mvzvm wrote: post #41
conception wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Remittances are better/easier. That’s the only thing I’ve seen and the tech to do that is trivial now and Bitcoin is terrible for it specifically now.

Are they? I've had no issues with remittances outside of blockchain. In places where I have heard remittances are difficult, it is usually due to regulation, something this does not solve either.

My Spanish teacher in Peru has to travel one hour by bus to reach the destination for Western Union money transfer. With crypto using local crypto exchange, he receives the money directly into his bank account.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#406

Post by znpy »

wizzwizz4 wrote: post #216
znpy wrote: post #167

For a blockchain to be decentralized, it's crucially important for regular users to be able to run a node, and to have a culture where running nodes is a common activity. you don't convince users to do stuff. you bribe them. introduce a small form of reward for running a validating node and voila, nodes popping up everywhere.

Decentralised communities used to exist without such bribery. I wonder why that's not really happening much any more. (Of course, the old ones still exist, and there are replacements to the ones that went defunct, but precious few new things work this way.)

except we're talking about a monetary system, not a community.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#407

Post by dmitriid »

spaceman_2020 wrote: post #398
dmitriid wrote: post #385

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like on-chain insurance Doesn't need blockchain > tranches to compartmentalize risk Doesn't need blockchain > creating entirely synthetic assets on-chain What does it even mean? Also: doesn't require blockchain.

Blockchain is what makes it freely accessible to anyone from anywhere without requiring a sign up or kyc or local presence. For instance, I can’t sign up for a US trading account without a certain amount of capital, going through a specialized broker, and clearing certain KYC rules. I can do all of that without ever needing to go through a single centralized authority. I can buy a tokenized version of TSLA stock with…

> Blockchain is what makes it freely accessible to anyone from anywhere without requiring a sign up

Except... You need to signup because there's literally no way to obtain anything on blockchain if you're not a miner.

Well, you could probably sell something for bitcoin, but then oops, you need to sign up somewhere to convert it into actual real money.

> I can’t sign up for a US trading account without a certain amount of capital, going through a specialized broker, and clearing certain KYC rules.

And there are reasons for that. And yes, similar crypto set ups quickly rediscover what those reasons are.

> I can do all of that without ever needing to go through a single centralized authority.

Until you pay for something and that something never arrives. Then you would be very glad to have a central authority.

> All the criticism is so first world centric and elitist

Ah yes. The tired old "but the poor people in poor countries" cries the person whose first example was "I can’t sign up for a US trading account without a certain amount of capital".

Because, as we all know, people not from the first world are flocking to open up US trading accounts and buy TSLA stocks.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#408

Post by crazypython »

dmitriid wrote: post #358
crazypython wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the blockchain data structure ensures that if you verify the older transactions, the newer transactions on top of it are verified. If the old version was valid, the newer block built on top of it is too.

> Yes, the blockchain data structure ensures that if you verify the older transactions, the newer transactions on top of it are verified. That is not enough. Blockchain is proposed for various things like, for example, land registries. They have to be kept around indefinitely long. In many countries financial institutions are required by law to keep financial transactions around for 4 years. Ans so on. But yeah, sure…

> Blockchain is proposed for various things like, for example, land registries. They have to be kept around indefinitely long. In many countries financial institutions are required by law to keep financial transactions around for 4 years. Ans so on.

If you have a copy of the latest block and the older verified block headers, you can trustlessly verify older blocks that people give you.

> But yeah, sure, go ahead and remove all historical data "because new transaction is mathematically valid".

Archival nodes– nodes that store full history– still exist and are still needed. You can query them from a normal full node and get their blocks.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#409

Post by shawnz »

ric2b wrote: post #391
bottled_poe wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the pillars of some derivative blockchain have collapsed, how will we be certain about which download is the untampered version?

For Bitcoin the correct one is the one with the most accumulated proof of work that doesn't contain any invalid blocks. For Ethereum 2.0 I believe it's something about asking a friend?

I think PoS chains typically use the chain with the most coin-days staked.

Re: The Limits to Blockchain Scalability

#410

Post by shawnz »

atweiden wrote: post #303
noxer wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>You can have that type of finality with centralized protocols built on top of the Bitcoin blockchain — Lightning Network being the standout example. Whats the point? No one wants that beside that LN needs BTC on chain Tx which if you dont arbitrary define as final after some blocks makes it exactly the same - not final. PoS/PoW is rather irrelevant. we already have solutions to make blocks/ledgers final its doesn't…

I don’t quite catch your point. The chances your brain continues functioning over the next twelve minutes is not 100%, but 100% less some infinitesimally small fraction. 99.999999...% is as close physical reality ever comes to 100%. > PoS/PoW is rather irrelevant It’s an incredibly relevant fact that PoS blockchains pos1, pos2, pos3 cannot be compared without overtly trusting central authorities to give you the “corr…

> PoS blockchains pos1, pos2, pos3 cannot be compared without overtly trusting central authorities to give you the “correct” answer.

I have seen you make this point before on here but I don't see how that is true. Can you elaborate? Don't PoS chains typically choose forks based on how much is staked? Last time we discussed this you never explained what is wrong with that approach.

Post reply on HN