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

71–80 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#71

Post by hapiri »

phase5 wrote: post #46

The author doesn't understand the value of distributed censorship resistant consensus that's secured by energy. Also the author fails to consider the situation of 80% of humanity who live in countries that experience hyperinflation frequently. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-pri...

Proof of Work is only as good as the assumption that CPU power and energy are guaranteed to be equally distributed, also everyone must have equal access on the network. Which we've seen is not the case.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#72

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

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…

I cannot judge the American banking situation but I can attest to the fact that transactions are reverted constantly in Europe. The reason for this is the SEPA direct debit system where debitors can directly charge an account via SEPA direct debit and fraud does happen. For that reason banks are very happy to reverse the transaction and it's not at all a unique situation.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#73

Post by dmitriid »

mike_d wrote: post #51
mightyRodri wrote: post #21

Earlier 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 rig the questionnaire to arrive at the exact answer you were looking for to begin with...

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#74

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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…

> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument.

In a sense, it admits that traditional banking has the advantage in that regard because it has things like traceability, reversibility, insurance, accountability, and legal guarantees. These have been put aside on purpose in the crypto market, and while I think I understand the whys and wherefores, I don't see giving up these consumer protections is worth it.

Well, not to me anyway, but I'm not getting rich off of crypto.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#75

Post by guilhas »

I like these articles as they will probably bring blockchain to a better state

Even if we all know knifes are dangerous

Probably in the future most enterprise applications will have some sort of transaction blockchain for auditing

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#76

Post by Cthulhu_ »

isodev wrote: post #39
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…

> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument. These features and capabilities are usually implied for financial systems. It's really just common sense.

I mean when you put it that way, blockchains aren't really financial systems in the first place.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#77

Post by cloutchaser »

andrepd wrote: post #50
cloutchaser wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 progres…

You're making the fallacy of conflating two unrelated concepts and drawing conclusions from that.

I've laid out how they are linked. Please debate my points rather than saying it's a fallacy, which adds nothing to the conversation and is basically an ad hominem attack like this (see, I can use these debating words too!)

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#78

Post by mattdesl »

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/

> technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better

Critics like Diehl repeat this often, but without ever referencing the solutions. What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus?

I would love to see the following succinctly solved by a non-crypto and non-blockchain solution:

- User A holds digital asset X (such as a valuable domain name "xyz.eth") and User B holds digital asset Y (such as a valuable sum of stablecoin tokens) and these users wish to exchange them in a single public + cryptographically verifiable transaction (i.e. atomic swap), without relying on the trust (and for-profit services) of a third-party escrow agent.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#79

Post by DrBazza »

mcv wrote: post #31
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?

First time I've seen anyone call git and mercurial a blockchain.

The basic definition of a blockchain covers the implementation of git.

https://stackoverflow.com/a/67090776

> Why is Git not considered a "block chain"?

> ....

> And this is what Git does, and hence Git is a blockchain, or works as one, if you prefer.

> To close the circle, let's ask again: Why is Git not considered a “block chain”? It could be because many people, perhaps even a large majority, do not focus on the essence of a concept but on blinking accidents.

I guess, as the question/answer implies, ultimately, it's personal opinion.

I look at Git and other DVCSs implementations and see that they match the definition of blockchain.

> A blockchain is a growing list of records, called blocks, that are securely linked together using cryptography.[1][2][3][4] Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a timestamp, and transaction data (generally represented as a Merkle tree, where data nodes are represented by leafs).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain (and... 'see also Version Control' on the same page...)

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#80

Post by nicbou »

cloutchaser wrote: post #22
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.

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 progres…

> But it is also likely to be most effective at delivering progress to humanity

How so? So far, crypto seems to amplify its worst trait: greed. It takes its destructive properties to new levels.

> you have the crowd obsessed with control

These controls are there for a reason. Controls create trust, and trust removes friction. Creating a stable currency and protecting people's money from scammers has nothing to do with censoring speech. It's a false equivalence.

> you have less freedom, less creativity, and more suffering

You also get this in an environment where the slightest mishap can irreversibly empty your savings account.

> used by those in power to cement their power

That's a problem with capital, not the currency with which it's expressed.

Post reply on HN