No post body was provided.
It’s not still the early days of blockchain
651–660 of 1001 posts
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#652I'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…
[dead]
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#653Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am glad to see someone else who realizes this point. When people were all excited about supply chain blockchains (for example, a blockchain to verify a piece of fruit is picked in a certain place at a certain time, that the transportation truck maintains a certain temperature) I kept asking what stops someone from lying and putting in bad data or tampering with any sensors along the way? There seemed to be this idea that what was on a blockchain was automatically truth just because it was on a blockchain.
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#654Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#655Earlier quoted context omitted.
By all accounts the adoption of that tech in El Salvador has been a disaster, the app is slow, buggy, not everyone has access and it’s easily exploitable for crime. Protests against it. Etc. I anticipate a reversal of this by the next government. Current governments cannot admit mistakes, so it’ll take a new term for it to be dismantled.
> has been a disaster, the app is slow, buggy, not everyone has access and it’s easily exploitable for crime Sounds like early 2000s online shopping to me.
Sounds like current online shopping...
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#656Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the absence of a governing authority, property disputes would revert to being settled by violence or the threat thereof. Why should my band of armed thugs defer to what it says on the blockchain when they could instead hit you with a $5 wrench until you vacate the premises? https://xkcd.com/538
Because everyone else around them would help defend the validity of the deeds, as they all own property in the same way. Like I said before, I'm far far away from having all the answers about how to set up a decentralized society and I'm not even sure I would like to live in such a society. However, issuing deeds and currency is an important job that currently you need a central government you trust to do. With a blo…
Reality (eg, Jews in Nazi germany) shows that this is bullshit.
If the local government and population is on your side, then you're fine.
If however you're a minority that's now deemed to be the enemy, then what supposedly belongs to you doesn't matter one bit. You can prove it as mathematically as you want, and you can have your neighbors on your side, but if a bigger army of goons shows up to take your stuff, they'll take it.
Ultimately this is an entirely political problem, and the blockchain will simply be completely ignored if things go to shit.
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#657Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's selling NFTs of ape cartoons, or selling crypto coins or other imaginary assets. Rails and MySQL are too transitory for that - you'd buy a record in the database only to find the company hosting the database had gone broke or been bought by Yahoo who closed them. You buy a bitcoin and you can be fairly confident in a decade or two you'll still have it.
Most NFTs aren't stored on the blockchain.
Yes - they usually use an URL that points to some IPFS that is behind a domain name they'll let lapse, and someone can cyber jack the domain.
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#658Earlier quoted context omitted.
Of course, the public can mistrust a paper vote, for good or bad reasons. But, it's not possible to reasonably trust an electronic voting system - the people installing and maintaining the system have myriad ways to manipulate the vote that are almost impossible to discover or prove (at least as long as you don't accept public voting, which has different issues).
There are many different ways to construct an electronic voting system. What you are describing is a traditional, centralized electronic voting system. There are electronic voting systems out there that provide certain guarantees without the need to trust.
No, there aren’t. There are systems designed to solve the problem of the inventor not getting paid by election officials but voting is an extremely hard problem once you learn about it and safe electronic voting is unsolved.
The big challenge is that it needs to be anonymous even in the case of attacks. Electronic systems offer many ways to cheat which you may have thought about in the context of making purchases but voting also needs to deal with unique problems like changing votes or coercion. If I buy a coffee, I don’t care if the owner alters their database as long as I get my coffee. I also don’t have a reason to fear that charge showing up on my statement but most proposed systems re-enable old attacks where, say, your boss/union/neighborhood crime leader/etc. could use the verification mechanism to confirm that you voted the way they told you to.
Paper ballots are the best system known because the system is easy to understand and doesn’t require huge amounts of trust. We just went through this in the United States where the leader of the country backed by a multibillion dollar propaganda machine tried to claim fraud but lost repeatedly because there was no plausible way to have altered or replaced paper ballots at scale. Electronic systems would have made it much easier to cast that doubt because the babble they tried about hacks would have been harder to disprove for the average voter and there would have been far more leeway for a partisan judge to find doubt.
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#659Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Users are free to switch service providers as they see fit No they are not. That is, they will need just as "free" to switch in the non-blockchain world. Why? Obvious, isn't it? - Blockchains can't store the amounts of data required (Youtube/Instagram/TikTok on blockchain? What a nice joke) - Even if you somehow can, companies will store data in their own proprietary ways incompatible with each other - And, of cour…
Data will never be stored on blockchains, its not what they’re for. It’s amusing that you’re so vehemently against something you know nothing about.
ique: Users are free to switch service providers as they see fit because their identity and data isn't tied to a single company.
me: data can't be stored on the bockchain, it will remain proprietary, so good luck "being free" and switching between service providers
ique: Data will never be stored on blockchains, its not what they’re for.
So, how exactly are users going to be "free to switch service providers" if their data will literally remain in a walled garden of the service provider?
Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain
#660I'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…
I like the idea that the chain can be used as the source of truth when other sources of truth have failed us. first 15 minutes of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cwbbxb987vE
This is disproving the claim: once you introduce oracles, you are acknowledging that the trust of the system comes from outside the chain.