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

961–970 of 1001 posts

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

#961

Post by CRConrad »

faeyanpiraat wrote: post #397
neiman wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Open-source has the great advantage that it's auditable by everyone, hence the trust is distributed. That's a comment for open-source in general, not about blockchains.

Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read, but the percentage of people able and willing to do so is quite low. Accepting pull requests is also limited to a set of individuals.

> Auditable in the sense that the code is there to read

Which code? Just your client code, or the code that miners and brokers and exchanges run on their servers, too? If the claim is the latter, how do you know that the published source code actually corresponds to the executables they're running?

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

#962

Post by CRConrad »

rvba wrote: post #290
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…

> web3 era There is no web3, nor web3 era. It is a marketing buzzword.

Maybe "eras" nowadays aren't defined by anything real any more, but by buzzwords.

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

#963

Post by CRConrad »

agumonkey wrote: post #664
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…

It's muddy waters. I just heard some guy from a public office saying they used DOT for some specific need (related to managing bonds somehow). And it was before last year boom. It's all very fuzzy

> some guy from a public office saying they used DOT for some specific need

Department of transport?

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

#964

Post by CRConrad »

cmews wrote: post #319
maxfromua wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, can you please explain (or give some link) how it is related to blockchain? https://www.helium.com/lorawan doesn’t mention this word In general, I was under the impression that IoT devices are underpowered for such usage. Thank you!

Also the internet of things devices are not running the blockchain but can (energy) efficiently transfer data to the helium network. The hotspots are also quite efficient if you look at the power usage (more similar to a light bulb instead of a proof of work miner)

So the devices probably go across the WiFi networks they're on and hack into the owners' PCs (or phones?) to mine Crypto-"currency"... At least that's the one way I can see for it to make financial sense for the manufacturer.

/cynicism

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

#965

Post by CRConrad »

darawk wrote: post #211
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…

> I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. So, you're opposed to the internet, then?

A resilient decentralised computer network -- first realised as ARPANET, which later grew into the Internet -- was a solution to the (at least perceived) pre-existing problem of a military (nuclear) threat to the USA from the Soviet Union.

TL;DR: You're wrong.

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

#966

Post by CRConrad »

darawk wrote: post #312
vba616 wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe you could refer to some history more specifically? Are you saying networking technology was developed in advance of a concept of what it's useful for? Or is it that a global network of networks was a qualitative step beyond simple networking that didn't have a clear justification?

> Maybe you could refer to some history more specifically? Are you saying networking technology was developed in advance of a concept of what it's useful for? I'm saying that networking technologies original intended use (resilient nuclear launch capability) is a tiny irrelevant fraction of what it is used for today. I'd argue that most transformative technologies are in fact not relegated to their original intended…

> I'm saying that networking technologies original intended use (resilient nuclear launch capability) is a tiny irrelevant fraction of what it is used for today.

But that's not what your GGP comment says (or at least strongly implies). ARPANET was not a solution in search of a problem; it was a solution to a pre-existing problem.

That this solution (or its progeny) was later found useful for a whole lot of other additional uses is something else entirely.

The reasoning in your progression of comments smacks if shifting the goalposts. To me, that implies an intellectual dishonesty that is all too typical of blockchain proponents.

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

#967

Post by CRConrad »

shlurpy wrote: post #386
tinco wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no big problem, science and technology are progressing at a great pace. The whole marketing of snake oil solutions is just a nuisance, they're not really affecting anything of value significantly. People are annoyed by Blockchain the same way people were annoyed by Justin Bieber, it's a whole lot to do about a person who is just a kid, a cool kid maybe, and he did make some good songs when he got older, but h…

People hated Justin Bieber because he appealed to young girls, and tons of men automatically hate everything young girls like as some kind of twisted self defense of their masculinity. People hate bitcoin because it appeals to people they find really annoying.

> People hated Justin Bieber because he appealed to young girls, and tons of men automatically hate everything young girls like as some kind of twisted self defense of their masculinity.

Naah, nothing to do with "self defense of their masculinity". We were just jealous that they found him so sexy and not us.

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

#968

Post by CRConrad »

freeone3000 wrote: post #564
yashg wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK so a privately owned and controlled blockchain which only allows trusted users to add blocks is still a blockchain? What would be the advantages of using a private, permissioned blockchain over a MySQL/Oracle/SQL Server database for storing data? Why as an external user would I trust a centralized blockchain more than I would trust a centralized database? They are both private owned and controlled by a company.

You'd use a private, permissioned blockchain over federated SQL databases due to the technical difficulties of synchronizing audit tables across organizational boundaries -- since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database. None of the companies here will fully…

> since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database.

And why couldn't a distributed SQL database be append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and implemented so each new entry has a hash of the previous state? (If you own it, just set it up to disallow updates or deletes, and allow inserts only through a trigger / stored procedure that adds the timestamp and hash.)

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

#969

Post by CRConrad »

hunterb123 wrote: post #243
mujina93 wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can tip people with normal money. Paying for hosting with extremely volatile and environmental harmful tokens that only a part of population pretends has a real value, that you want to hoard rather than spend, and that might go to 0 at some point? To have basically torrents? Sending deflationary ponzi scheme tokens to people is not helping them. Also, fees are high. Private transactions are great if you are a cri…

> You can tip people with normal money. If the powers at be allow you to (PayPal, banks, credit card companies) If Mastercard doesn't like you or your wares (porn or dissent) good luck! > Private transactions are great if you are a criminal, I'll give you that. Tired old trope. You don't have to be a criminal to enjoy privacy. > Tell me one "dapp" (or "extremely wasteful programs that run on a CPU that is orders and…

There is a reason tired old tropes become tired old tropes.

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

#970

Post by CRConrad »

beambot wrote: post #215
foepys wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Please feel free to go and attack all of those ideas and projects, but don't think for a second you can really gaslight people into believing they aren't worth of pursuit. This hostility is completely unnecessary. But if you want I can add one more to the list: funding the North Korean nuclear weapons program. https://www.zdnet.com/article/north-korean-hackers-stole-a-r...

I'm confused. Are you being facetious about crypto having adverse uses too, or are you saying we should ban rocketry (another technology with good & bad uses), or something else entirely?

They're being semi-facetious about crypto having adverse uses. ("Too"?)
Post reply on HN