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

Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 393 posts

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#91

Post by jakelazaroff »

zozbot234 wrote: post #76
reincarnate0x14 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The leviathan is loose and it's never going back in a pen until the whole thing collapses under the weight of the fraud. Even legal restrictions on it will only help a little bit as enough moneyed interests are invested in keeping the hype train rolling. I've consulted for several companies trying to do blockchain based non-money things and can't emphasize to them enough that no one outside computer science and math…

> can't emphasize to them enough that no one outside computer science and math fields will ever associate them with anything but cryptocurrency (and thus scams) How so? "Private blockchains" (with no general access + cryptographic proof of commitment) are practically indistinguishable from plain old Merkle trees, and yet I don't see many people arguing that git is some sort of "scam" even outside the CS and math comm…

No one called git a “blockchain” until the cryptocurrency fad. The point is that the zero-trust aspect is useless if you can control the source of truth.

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#92

Post by Eddy_Viscosity2 »

logicalmonster wrote: post #68

> what a nightmarish step backwards it is for developers concerned with cost, speed, privacy, safety, and ease. 1) There's a lot of research and development into blockchain technology by very smart people. The systems are improving. What technology we'll have 5, 10, or 25 years from now is going to be much different than what exists now. It's a lack of imagination to think that because crypto is "slow" now (and not a…

One of the points of the folding ideas video is that systems always become centralized in one way or another over time. Even the current ones are not nearly as decentralized as is claimed.

The bit about the stock is that shares counting issue isn't a 'problem' for the stock market, its a feature. They could easily solve this with existing technology. They don't because they make too much money playing the games. Blockchain won't fix that any more than it will solve censorship or cure cancer.

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#94

Post by abrahms »

I did writing to a similar effect yesterday. https://justin.abrah.ms/2022-01-27-my-thoughts-on-crypto.htm...

tl;dr - I would really love to like the crypto stuff that's being worked on, I just can't get on board with the big problems I'm seeing.

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#95

Post by unkulunkulu »

sudosysgen wrote: post #67
ohazi wrote: post #32

Like many people back then, I also found the whole proof-of-work / blockchain concept to be interesting from a theoretical computer science / distributed systems perspective. But these days, I can't help but think that we've inadvertently created a paperclip maximizer without even bothering to create an AGI first. Humans are the AGI, and we're going to happily use more and more energy to play this stupid game for as…

Capital in general is a paperclip maximizer, not just Bitcoin. All investors are slaves to their capital that takes a mind of its own, a sort of real-world Egregore. Bitcoin is a flagrant example of this property of capital.

I will risk taking downvotes for not meaningful post, but thank you for this message, really. It is a good connection (the paper clip maximizer capital, I will have to familiarize myself with Egrogore still :)

up: Oh my god, capital as an emergent bigger entity, ok, ok, now I'm scared, thank you :)

up2: So you either fuel it or not, choices choices

up3: This is such a beautiful thing we are all mixed up in, don't you think?

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#97

Post by CamperBob2 »

rschachte wrote: post #69
300bps wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The word immutable has a meaning. Blockchain does not fit that meaning. Immutable doesn’t mean, “as long as 51% of miners want it to not change”. Immutable doesn’t mean, “doesn’t change unless we get hacked and then we’ll change it”. I could give more examples. Blockchains are not immutable.

The statistical likelihood of a 51% attack happening on the blockchain seems statistically way less likely than a hack targeting our existing financial system. I mean, it's pretty easy why blockchains are considered immutable, you can even code one from scratch in Python in less than 200 lines of code. To control 51% of all those hashing power, an entity would need to power computers that works as much as that, along…

To control 51% of all those hashing power, an entity would need to power computers that works as much as that, along with paying for the equipment and energy consumption and whatever costs needed for the operation. Current estimates of Bitcoin mining energy usage stands at 71 TeraWatthour, enough to power the whole country of Austria.

Or they'd need to find a way to break SHA256. That's a risk you don't hear much about.

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#98

Post by jupp0r »

ohazi wrote: post #32

Like many people back then, I also found the whole proof-of-work / blockchain concept to be interesting from a theoretical computer science / distributed systems perspective. But these days, I can't help but think that we've inadvertently created a paperclip maximizer without even bothering to create an AGI first. Humans are the AGI, and we're going to happily use more and more energy to play this stupid game for as…

Incentives are key to bring the technology back into the realm of usefulness (in the grand scheme of things). Externalities need to be priced into energy costs. In principle there is no problem with using the electric power of a small country for proof of work purposes, as long as the production of that energy is not harmful to everybody via global warming or pollution.

In the end, more efficient ways of achieving the same result will prevail in a well functioning market. Currently everything is skewed because crypto is mined with cheap coal power that the global society is subsidizing by paying for externalities.

I don't think crypto is unique in this. Gold and diamond production is also pretty expensive and useless (apart from their industrial applications, which are limited in comparison to their use to store value).

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#99

Post by tomiplaz »

Victerius wrote: post #81
tomiplaz wrote: post #63

I don't think you understand what Bitcoin has brought to the table. Consider its fundamentals and its network effect. Other blockchain tech, most prominently permissioned blockchains, should be reprobated, since they don't require blockchain tech and could be better implemented using tech that relies on standard database systems.

What Bitcoin has brought to the table: - More convenient ways for malicious individuals to conduct ransomware attacks - Fraudulent exchanges - Persistent and global GPU shortages - Anonymity to criminals - Staggering consumption of real-life energy supplies, produced mostly with fossil fuels What Bitcoin has not brought to the table: - A store of value - A trusted unit of account - A widespread medium of exchange

Please try to expand your lists. Also, please try to create the same kind of expanded lists for other such related tech you're comparing Bitcoin with.

Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies

#100

Post by dnautics »

sudosysgen wrote: post #67
ohazi wrote: post #32

Like many people back then, I also found the whole proof-of-work / blockchain concept to be interesting from a theoretical computer science / distributed systems perspective. But these days, I can't help but think that we've inadvertently created a paperclip maximizer without even bothering to create an AGI first. Humans are the AGI, and we're going to happily use more and more energy to play this stupid game for as…

Capital in general is a paperclip maximizer, not just Bitcoin. All investors are slaves to their capital that takes a mind of its own, a sort of real-world Egregore. Bitcoin is a flagrant example of this property of capital.

Isn't this statement trivially true for any sort of social system, where you can stand in social capital for Capital.
Post reply on HN