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

It’s not still the early days of blockchain

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

551–560 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#551

Post by mattdesl »

usrbinbash wrote: post #441
danschuller wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This depends what you mean "works", if it's meant on the technical conceptual level that yes, of course, I think no one would disagree. If it's taken to mean had widespread and growing usage at the social level, then I think that's hard to argue.

People don't exchange public keys on the blorkchain, they use username/password to access their wallets, and these have a public key. That in itself doesn't authenticate anyone to anything, the only guarantee is that it is unique. How do we know who is behind a hash? Because there is a server (aka. a "centralized authority") that has that information. So how exactly is that different from using my google account to l…

this is a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of non-custodial private key management. what you are describing is a custodial wallet.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#552

Post by SanJacobs »

janandonly wrote: post #484

I never understand critiques like these. > "somehow no one appears to have managed to find a positive use for blockchains that wouldn’t be better served by blockchainless technologies" There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022. Replacing central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing, is the whole re…

Yes, I agree, and this is all very cool, however regarding this point:

> There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022.

Sure. That's true, but doesn't actually matter, imo., because the point of crypto is to:

> Replac[e] central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing

So approval from the government in the case of crypto is worth about as much as it is for making love. It's the losing side of a game saying "You know what, we'll be so gracious as to allow you to win". Never needed your permission to begin with.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#553

Post by tomputer »

chucke wrote: post #474
tomputer wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why something like insurance needs a token on a decentralized blockchain. The Bitcoin blockchain needs a token because the token itself represents the value (BTC) inside the network. The token is also needed because it adds an incentive for nodes (miners) to support the network. Note: this is my current view of it. If someday it turns out it is useful, I am happy to admit that I was wrong.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Bitcoin is broken and will never be more than a speculative asset with no intrinsic value. Blockchains can solve problems. Decentralisation can quickly become federation. Example: a global id system where the "miners" are countries. It removes the need of physical passports and their associated costs and delays.

> You're missing the forest for the trees. Bitcoin is broken and will never be more than a speculative asset with no intrinsic value.

I disagree. It's off-topic so I'm not going start an endless discussion about intrinsic value.

> Decentralisation can quickly become federation. Example: a global id system where the "miners" are countries. It removes the need of physical passports and their associated costs and delays.

As long as humans submit the external data to the blockchain someone can cheat with the data. Actually, cheating is a nice feature if you need double passports for diplomats, spies or informants. The result is a blockchain with permanent records with data you can not fully trust because the data did not exist on the blockchain in the first place.

I'm all for a digital solution instead of physical passports but I do believe this can be solved with distributed systems and international standards, instead of permanent records on a decentralized blockchain.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#554

Post by cmews »

ninepoints wrote: post #495
cmews wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, I will bite :) The gateway rewards are becoming less and less every month because more gateways join the network. So in a certain way that feels like a pyramid scheme because the people that joined earlier have an advantage (they also took the most risk by backing this project in a early state). It is quite normal to reward the first movers to your platform (PayPal even gave away free money to grow their user bas…

> It is quite normal to reward the first movers to your platform (PayPal even gave away free money to grow their user base) The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. Surely you can see how the analogy isn't even remotely 1-1.

This is what Elon said about PayPal growth strategy:

ELON MUSK: Yeah. Well, we started off first by offering people $20 if they opened an account. And $20 if they referred anyone. And then we dropped it to $10. And we dropped it to $5. As the network got bigger and bigger, the value of the network itself exceeded any sort of carrot that we could offer.

Helium is trying the same thing (only decentralized) with the proof of coverage algorithm and rewards (which are diminishing by a halving process every two and a half years I think) so that the network can sustain itself. Please let me know why the cognitive dissonance is astounding because their proof of coverage hotspot rewards look a bit more advanced to the growth strategy PayPal used and they hope the network will be sustained by data transfer only when the rewards are not given anymore. (https://cdn.codetober.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/1111471...)

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#555

Post by cinquemb »

Nextgrid wrote: post #543
cinquemb wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A blockchain (or the contracts that run upon any particular one) could also incentivize a distributed group of participants to take it upon themselves to temporarily and physically enforce some ones else's real world claims (a signed tx from the same addr with the on chain claim putting their owner ship up as collateral to be liquidated at a discount conditional if the buyer can secure the premises by any means neces…

> if the buyer can secure the premises by any means necessarily How does the blockchain know that said access has been secured? Is it up to the original requestor to confirm this? If so, what if they're malicious and don't want to do so as to not give up their collateral? If it's down to a neutral third-party acting as an oracle, what prevents said third-party from being bribed/coerced/hacked into providing false dat…

> How does the blockchain know that said access has been secured? Is it up to the original requestor to confirm this? If so, what if they're malicious and don't want to do so as to not give up their collateral? If it's down to a neutral third-party acting as an oracle, what prevents said third-party from being bribed/coerced/hacked into providing false data to the blockchain?

Auger[0] has something like this:

"Reputation (REP) and (REPv2) is a cryptocurrency, used by reporters during market dispute phases of Augur. REP and REPv2 holders must perform work, in the form of staking their REP or REPv2 on correct outcomes, to receive a portion of the markets settlement fees. If you do not report correctly, you do not get the fees. If you report incorrectly, you lose your REP or REPv2. If you don’t participate in a fork (when the network has a very large dispute over an outcome), you permanently lose your ability to migrate your REP or REPv2 to a forked universe, making it functionally useless within the used version of the Augur Protocol, and in theory making it worthless. Passive holders of Reputation (REP or REPv2) that are not using their Reputation (REP or REPv2) within the Augur protocol to stake on disputes and forks are penalized. The treatment of REP and REPv2 within the Augur protocol is governed not by the Forecast Foundation but by the protocols smart contracts as described in the Augur white paper and documentation."

Other protocols may handle things differently.

> All of this can be solved by the law (eventually escalating to people allowed to use deadly force), but at that point why do you even need a blockchain?

Assuming if the law in all jurisdictions around the world were as sufficient for all cases presently and into the future. Also this assumes that its not the enforcers of a particular law aren't also the ones that the on chain claimant wants to take action against (again, the payout would need to be high enough for those to incentivize action against a particular jurisdictions enforcers, which need not necessarily mean engaging on the property, but anything to get the enforcers to back off even going after friends and family and their property in retaliation [which is more doable in jurisdictions who databases with such sensitive information have been compromised])

[0] https://augur.net/faqs/

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#556

Post by aflag »

Vespasian wrote: post #494
nly wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Deeds aren't a thing anymore in many countries. In the UK ownership is determined by a centralised land registry, and it must be registered if ownership is to change hands.

Exactly, and while the government database "land registry" could, of course, be replaced with a government "HouseChain" it wouldn't actually solve any Problem but would introduce a ton of new ones.

However, if you have no government, the housechain could be a way for a decentralized society to implement the concept of a land registry. Once everyone agrees that the housechain is proof of ownership, then measures can be taken to enforce that without necessarily evoking a central government.

I'm not sold on the idea of a society without a central government, but I think the blockchain would help — or even enable — such an experiment.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#557

Post by chucke »

wayoutthere wrote: post #525
chucke wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you can’t have a corrupt official ask for a cash payment to “expedite” your passport / visa application if it’s fast to begin with And yet this happens. Theoretically the blockchain reduces the entry barrier more, while not compromising on compliance and security guarantees. You're spot on that countries would have to agree, and different blocks could form. It's no different than trade and visa agreements. The bloc…

I’m not convinced that blockchains would actually reduce the cost or provide any benefit over a federated system where each nation (or group of nations like the EU) controls the data of its own citizens. I run into this problem with nearly every potential blockchain application I hear: it’s usually faster / cheaper / less disruptive to use a centralized or federated system governed by legal agreements that are hashed…

Blockchains can, and most likely will, be federated. Legal agreements can be managed via such a system. Bear in mind that the blockchain does not solve politics, and all the problems you mention are a problem of the currently most common implementation of a blockchain, which is cryptocurrencies.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#558

Post by usrbinbash »

miracle2k wrote: post #532
usrbinbash wrote: post #435

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"pretty green" is not a unit of measurement. How "green" something is, is determined by how much resources one unit of what it does uses, compared to how much resources doing the same unit of work on an alternative system uses. eg. a petroleum lantern produces light more efficiently than a campfire. However, neither of them is "pretty green" compared to a LED. Compare the amount of energy per transaction required wit…

> "pretty green" is not a unit of measurement. PoS is just a bunch of computers largely idling. Whether it's 1k or 10k, it doesn't matter - there is no energy use to speak of, at least none that society has a legitimately interest in regulating. The Tezos Foundation, who's interest is in advertising how green they are, claims in a year they consume as much electricity as 17 individuals ( https://tezos.com/carbon/ ).…

> It is up to critics to provide evidence of PoS energy use being a concern

So, is there evidence, as in peer-reviewed studies, that PoS blockchains can handle the volume of transactions of traditional financial systems while requiring LESS energy?

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#559

Post by xvilka »

hubraumhugo wrote: post #33

I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. Why? Back in 2017 during the first hype cycle, blockchain companies raised hundreds of millions with ICOs. I became very interested in the technology too, and some friends still work in this space. 4 years later in the web3 era, there is not a single product aside from trading/finance that got traction. Use cases like stori…

Biggest logistics companies in the world use it: https://www.tradelens.com/

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#560

Post by PretzelPirate »

SanJacobs wrote: post #552
janandonly wrote: post #484

I never understand critiques like these. > "somehow no one appears to have managed to find a positive use for blockchains that wouldn’t be better served by blockchainless technologies" There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022. Replacing central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing, is the whole re…

Yes, I agree, and this is all very cool, however regarding this point: > There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022. Sure. That's true, but doesn't actually matter, imo., because the point of crypto is to: > Replac[e] central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing So approval from the government in th…

You’re referencing the point of Bitcoin, not the point of crypto. Other platforms aren’t interested in destroying the existing financial system and would much rather digitize it and make it open to everyone.
Post reply on HN