Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense • Hacker News Board

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#51

Post by mike_d » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:20 AM UTC

mightyRodri wrote: post #21

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/

What technical solution do you have for multiple parties needing to transact where they do not trust each other and cannot depend on a third party or the court system for dispute resolution? I'll wait.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#52

Post by xeyownt » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:20 AM UTC

Strange that the article doesn't mention the dangerous nonsense regarding the impact on energy consumption (and impact on climate), and impact on parts availability (or lack thereof, eg. graphic cards), with absolutely zero benefit.

Blockchains should be banned and be considered pyramid-scheme fraud. Trading or paying with blockchain-based currency should be forbidden.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#53

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

DrBazza wrote: post #12

I wish these authors would define exactly "which blockchain" they hate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain "A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography." So, yeah, git and mercurial are "dangerous nonsense". But of course they're really talking about cryptocurrencies and smart contracts, right? So why not put that in the title?

If you want to be pedantic, git isn't a block-chain so much as a tree.

But more importantly, git isn't what people usually think about when they hear block-chain. The irony is that it's probably a good example of how such systems can contribute value to society through decentralisation.

Normally, when people hear "block-chain", they think of the bitcoin-flavoured public append-only ledger where forking and merging aren't a thing, conflicts get resolved via proof of work with some built-in cryptocurrency. Those are, almost exclusively, "dangerous nonsense"

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#54

Post by lovingCranberry » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:21 AM UTC

> A recent example for this insanity from here in Germany is the development of the digital vaccination certificate in early 2021. In the beginning it was planned to use blockchain technology. In this specific case they wanted to use not only one, but five. Why? Nobody knew exactly and after massive criticism from the public the plan was dropped and replaced by a simpler architecture without blockchains, that’s still in use now.

Just because some people are using the wrong tool for the job does not make a blockchain "nonsense" for all jobs.

Bitcoin does provide a lot of value for me as a currency. A credit card payment processor once chose to disable the company's account I worked for [1]. Bitcoin enabled us to not having to immediately let go members of our team. I'm actually glad that there are so many people out there in the tech community who are happy to pay with Bitcoin.

I don't see any value in all the alt coins though. Most of the crypto purchases at the SaaS were made with Bitcoin. All those alt coins with their own blockchain are just made for junkies for love trading by charts. Just pure speculation and the side with more liquidity wins. Furthermore, the only application of blockchains which I have seen as a value creation tool is the application as the public ledger in Bitcoin.

Also, let me quote Hal Finney why alt coins don't work: "Any successful replacement of the Bitcoin block chain will forever undermine the credibility of any successor. How is an investor to know that it won't happen again?

Rebooting now may benefit a few thousand early adopters. What happens when hundreds of millions use Bitcoin 2? They'll be just as jealous and envious of you as you are of others. Given the precedent you want to set, how will you argue against yet another reboot?" [2]

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30632086

[2] https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=10666.msg152988#msg1...

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#55

Post by okintheory » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:22 AM UTC

Grustaf wrote: post #18

I'm very sceptical of blockchain (though I've been in crypto off and on since 2013) but most of the arguments in this article are non-sensical. For example: > But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer. I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds…

It seems a bit off to assert that "people feel it is a price worth paying" when almost all purchases online are made with credit cards which have some protections against fraud, and almost none are made with blockchains in comparison. It seems like so far, most people don't think it's a price worth paying?

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#56

Post by SirionGlorund » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:22 AM UTC

If I want a transaction to be guaranteed by a third party, I still can with blockchain. I can send the funds to them and let them manage. If I don’t want, I send them directly to the addressee. At least I have a choice. On the contrary, today any transaction has to pass through a government controlled currency, and any significant amount via a bank.

Saying that X is made of code that may have errors so it's not useful, is a ridiculous argument. The person saying this is gaining attention posting things on a platform that is made of code that has a chance of errors.

They should write down their anger on calf skin parchment delivered by hand by a hundred centuries old post system, to be coherent.

The future is elsewhere, that past is already gone.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#57

Post by DarkWiiPlayer » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:22 AM UTC

baisq wrote: post #4

The first argument boils down to "I need a central entity to fix mistakes". That does not necessarily apply to everything. An immutable ledger sounds like something that could be useful. Myself I can't think of any uses besides crypto, but the fact that I can't find any use for a technology myself doesn't turn it into "dangerous nonsense"

I found a use for it: Doxxing.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#58

Post by jiveturkey » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

JohnGB wrote: post #47

Grustaf wrote: post #18

I'm very sceptical of blockchain (though I've been in crypto off and on since 2013) but most of the arguments in this article are non-sensical. For example: > But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer. I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds…

> Normally, cases of fraud or mistakes could be rectified or reverted by the bank or similar institutions after a review of the situation by humans. This "could" happen, but in practice it rarely happens because the money has moved on as soon as it hits the account. Additionally, for many types of fraud, there has to be an actual court order to get a bank to take action. So the argument is predicated on a false assum…

Actually reversals frequently happen. For example, a multi day delay is built into ACH, partly for this exact reason. Also, with credit cards and some flavors of bank transactions you as the end user are protected against fraud, even if (yes)the money has already moved on, you are made whole. The loss is absorbed by the bank. By absorbed, of course I mean you've paid for that service with various fees which amount to a kind of insurance. (Nothing really comes "for free".)

But yes, there are plenty of other types of transactions, like gift card scams, that you would not be made whole for.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#59

Post by john_alan » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

xeyownt wrote: post #52

Strange that the article doesn't mention the dangerous nonsense regarding the impact on energy consumption (and impact on climate), and impact on parts availability (or lack thereof, eg. graphic cards), with absolutely zero benefit. Blockchains should be banned and be considered pyramid-scheme fraud. Trading or paying with blockchain-based currency should be forbidden.

By definition cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin, Monero, Ether etc, are not a pyramid-scheme.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#60

Post by hapiri » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 9:24 AM UTC

baisq wrote: post #20

ahartmetz wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does turn it into dangerous nonsense is the "solution looking for a problem" phenomenon, fueled by techno-libertarians and more so plain greedy people, looking for a way to justify and entrench the mostly useless technology that makes them rich.

Quoted post unavailable.

In the sense that it is useless for society, by extracting the collective's wealth while providing no net benefits.