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

91–100 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#91

Post by nottorp »

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…

> > 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 was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument.

The problem is any payment system DOES need that. And the competition has it.

Abstract goals without connection to real life needs are nice. Not useful.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#92

Post by Grustaf »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #74
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 wheref…

For most people it isn't. Maybe at some point it will, if governments let the money printer brr even more, or if we see more of what Canada did. If that is amplified by say 10x, I think a lot of people would start to reconsider.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#93

Post by dbrgn »

DarkWiiPlayer wrote: post #53
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 a…

Bitcoin is a block-tree as well, you can have diverging branches. It's just that branches are usually very short-lived due to the incentives designed into the system.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#94

Post by DebtDeflation »

lovingCranberry wrote: post #54

> 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…

>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?

Under this logic, Geocities must be the predominant social media service today. Because if MySpace were able to replace it, how would investors know the same could not later happen to MySpace with Facebook, etc.?

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#95

Post by Grustaf »

themacguffinman wrote: post #40
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…

If blockchain proponents want to replace the existing system that does protect against human-factor scams and frauds (ie. the current financial system that lets governments and institutions control it to enforce the law) then it's going to be part of the discussion whether they like it or not.

Of course it should be part of the discussion, but the article seems to think that crypto people are unaware of it. They're not, they just think it's worth it.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#96

Post by cloutchaser »

nicbou wrote: post #80
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…

> 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 wit…

Every innovation has had this pattern of behaviour. Steam railways, dotcom bubble etc.

Part of new technology is many scammers entering it and exploiting the situation. Of course in many cases this isn't actually planned scamming, just taking risks in a new market and losing money.

What most here in this thread are basically arguing is blockchain is evil and shouldn't exist. Well, then neither should the internet or steam railways. It's shows a complete lack of understanding of human behaviour and history.

Really sad to see from the HN crowd. They are falling for the narrative built by people threatened by crypto, which is basically the people in power currently. Of course these are also the people against free speech. It's not an accident this is happening.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#97

Post by delegate »

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…

It is the people, not the technology.

It is about money and getting rich.

Whichever problem a certain blockchain is supposed the solve, the main reason for its existence is that the people who create it want to get rich, fabulously rich and fast.

Besides getting rich, majority of these projects are solutions to non-existent or solved problems, which use a very complicated distributed immutable database that very few investors actually understand.

If it's complicated and convoluted, then it must be the future.

Fabulously rich is hypnotising and it can easily become the most important thing in someone's life.

They're betting a lot on being right.

Others, who see the side effects of these people's mission in life, try to wake them up from this hypnosis, but that's impossible.

And so far, they have been right and many got rich.

But I have yet to see a project that solved a real problem (besides dark markets and the ones that enable crypto)

The side effects are not negligible though, they really affect others - scams, ransomware, energy use, etc ..

So it's going to stay polarized.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#98

Post by smt88 »

cloutchaser wrote: post #29
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 a…

I am a huge proponent of decentralization. You could distill my philosophy down to this: the concentration of power into a single person is always dangerous. This is why I support democracies and breaking up monopolistic companies, among other things.

I have also spent years trying to figure out a use-case for blockchain that is not solved by some other technology with less risk, and I can't figure one out.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#99

Post by junofan »

Grustaf wrote: post #86
okintheory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 was referring to people in crypto. Obviously the general public prefers traditional payment systems because most people have no problem trusting that the banks will do the right thing.

Millions of people work at banks… lots of middlemen that maybe don’t need to be there anymore…

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#100

Post by mattdesl »

pja wrote: post #70
mike_d wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I gave an example here[1].

The typical answer is "just trust a third-party service" which side-steps the constraints in the question.

FWIW there is a variety of reasons you may not want to use a service like escrow.com — they take a cut of the exchange, operate as a for-profit business in a particular US-based jurisdictions, only operate on a limited set of currencies, request personal/private data sharing, and tend to settle the transaction in days, not seconds or minutes.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31190423

Post reply on HN