How does this even get upvoted..
Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
61–70 of 392 posts
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#62I 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?
Although the summery description would seem to apply to git and mercurial, the detailed description under “structure” lists a number of features not present in those, like a PoW/PoS consensus mechanism.
"Blockchain" is an append only ledger. It has nothing to do with proof of $foo.
Certificate Transparency is a blockchain that your browser queries for every website you visit.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#63> 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…
> Text explains why a thing is generally bad
> Text gives an example of said thing being used
> Comment points out how the example doesn't prove the thing is bad
Congratulations, you've almost figured out how examples work.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#64Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#65Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Don't sell illegal drugs?
Sure there are countries with no functioning legal systems and extreme levels of corruption but most people affected by that would probably have a hard time using blockchain technologies directly and would have to rely on 3rd parties anyway.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Why don't you give your answer to these questions first? I'll wait.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#67> 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?
[deleted]
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
When you use bitcoin, you actually rely on a third party to validate your transaction. A banking organisation can also be a third party.
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#69I'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?
I'd go one step further: the few legal purchases done with crypto currencies are mostly done by people unaware they're paying that price
Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense
#70Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you’re transacting with a bunch of people that you do not trust then the payment rails are the least of your problems.
Your comment just feels like typical crypto-booster vague handwaving to me - can you give an actual example of such a situation where the existing third parties that alreayd exist to solve these kind of problems cannot be used? Be concrete.