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

Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

eisfunke.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#21

Post by mightyRodri »

onebot wrote: post #3

It amazes me how polarizing blockchain and cryptocurrency is. It is to black/white, love/hate. I really don't ever remember a technology that has created such a visceral reaction from people. I personally, believe there is a quite novel concept behind the trust-less consensus mechanisms. It amazes me that computers can come to an agreement in a hostile environment--fully decentralized. How that is put to use in pract…

There is no baby. The technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better. The only thing bchains does is give ppl with a lot of money to become stakeholders, the possibility to comodify even more parts of the internet. Thats the only upside of the technology, scam ppl for their money.

https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/against-crypto.html

https://web3isgoinggreat.com/

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#22

Post by cloutchaser »

Eisfunke wrote: post #5
ulzeraj wrote: post #2

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…

As explained in the text: the point isn't that these problems aren't solved by blockchain, they're amplified. E.g.: scams existed without blockchain, but now they're forever and permanently engraved into the blockchain. Code was always flawed, but now a bug isn't just a bug, it's a bug in a smart contract with potentially disastrous consequences that can never be properly fixed.

This is almost a political argument. Because it's the same argument about free speech.

In the end, you either believe in the individual's choice, and individuals will do really stupid and bad stuff, and they will also fall for scams, but do you give the individual freedom of choice to fall for scams and speak freely?

This is a high risk option, perhaps. But it is also likely to be most effective at delivering progress to humanity, considering the difference between innovation over the last 200 years, has it happened in places with more freedom or less?

On the other hand, you have the crowd obsessed with control, obsessed with how the idiot needs to be protected from their own stupidity, and the crowd needs to be protected from the speech of the idiot. But somehow when you control things, in the end they start being used by those in power to cement their power, and suddenly you have less freedom, less creativity, and more suffering. But it's nice for some, because everything is under control.

Make your choice which side you are on.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#23

Post by stkdump »

ulzeraj wrote: post #2

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…

The blockchain is relying on the perfect solution fallacy. It tries to solve a problem that is mostly theoretical, does a very incomplete job and creates bigger problems than it is ever able to solve. The 'redeeming' factor is that on the way it makes some people rich.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#24

Post by dr_dshiv »

onebot wrote: post #3

It amazes me how polarizing blockchain and cryptocurrency is. It is to black/white, love/hate. I really don't ever remember a technology that has created such a visceral reaction from people. I personally, believe there is a quite novel concept behind the trust-less consensus mechanisms. It amazes me that computers can come to an agreement in a hostile environment--fully decentralized. How that is put to use in pract…

I think it is the concept of “trust-less” itself. You replace trust in people and institutions with trust in technology. I think that rubs some people the wrong way.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#26

Post by DarkWiiPlayer »

ulzeraj wrote: post #2

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…

The post points out several shortcomings of a system that is objectively worse in almost every aspect than the existing alternatives.

Calling this a Nirvana fallacy borders on bad faith.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#27

Post by Grustaf »

Eisfunke wrote: post #5
ulzeraj wrote: post #2

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. > More precisely: The trust in institutions controlled by humans and bound by established laws and rules is instead replaced — by unconditional trust in the infallibility of code (“in code we trust” is a popular phrase in the scene…

As explained in the text: the point isn't that these problems aren't solved by blockchain, they're amplified. E.g.: scams existed without blockchain, but now they're forever and permanently engraved into the blockchain. Code was always flawed, but now a bug isn't just a bug, it's a bug in a smart contract with potentially disastrous consequences that can never be properly fixed.

This is not necessarily a flaw in the technology, it's just one way in which it differs from what we are used to.

I think most coiners, who skew strongly libertarian, would argue that it's up to you to make sure your smart contracts work.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#28

Post by dividuum »

karxxm wrote: post #6

> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. What if a group of trusted organizations run a blockchain together?

Like the one for Certificate Transparency: https://certificate.transparency.dev/logs/

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#29

Post by cloutchaser »

onebot wrote: post #3

It amazes me how polarizing blockchain and cryptocurrency is. It is to black/white, love/hate. I really don't ever remember a technology that has created such a visceral reaction from people. I personally, believe there is a quite novel concept behind the trust-less consensus mechanisms. It amazes me that computers can come to an agreement in a hostile environment--fully decentralized. How that is put to use in pract…

Many of the people controlling the narrative have realised recently what a threat decentralisation is. They are pushing extremely hard to make everyone think this is some evil useless force that is only used for scamming people. It's the same way protecting the children is used by people in power to take away your privacy.

Blockchains and cryptos are innovative tools. They can be used for good and bad, but they are an interesting development.

It's really sad how many on HN have fallen for this black and white thinking.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#30

Post by Grustaf »

thriftwy wrote: post #19
Eisfunke wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As explained in the text: the point isn't that these problems aren't solved by blockchain, they're amplified. E.g.: scams existed without blockchain, but now they're forever and permanently engraved into the blockchain. Code was always flawed, but now a bug isn't just a bug, it's a bug in a smart contract with potentially disastrous consequences that can never be properly fixed.

I'm not sure why smart contracts don't come with signature (or just an address) - this way they can be updated by authorizing party but nobody else. By a transaction involving a contractcoin perhaps. You surely can't expect to author perfect code and set it in stone.

If it's immutable, it only needs to be audited once.
Post reply on HN