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

111–120 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#111

Post by Grustaf »

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 guess it differs by geography, but here in Sweden, when I accidentally transferred €10k to an old account that didn't exist anymore I wasn't the least bit concerned that the money would get lost. I would have been extremely surprised if they hadn't given me the money back.

That's the advantage of a high trust society. Heck, once an ATM retracted my cash because I wasn't quick enough, I called the bank and they just credited my account with the €300 or whatever it was. No questions asked.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#112

Post by lovingCranberry »

DebtDeflation wrote: post #94
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…

I don't think you can compare a deflationary currency with an actual service.

Look, a social media service has way more features and works in a completely different way than transferring wealth from Alice to Bob.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#114

Post by z3c0 »

Blockchains are cool. Very, very cool. Merkle trees on their own are pretty cool, and blockchains are just a Merkle tree hashed into a chain-like structure to create work for decentralized verification. This is a very clever concept, and it is the only known solution to the Byzantine Generals problem that doesn't involve a centralized authority (that I'm aware of).

What about this is intrinsically "dangerous nonsense"? Honestly, the "bitcoin bad" crowd so often loses me by conflating cryptocurrency - a ledger built on blockchain - with blockchain itself. Personally, I can see all the challenges faced by cryptocurrency and understand the skepticism, but these takes that write off blockchain due to cryptocurrencies' problems exhibit a sort of surface-level perspective that I can't take very seriously. And the fact that such shallow takes keep climbing to the top of HN is shameful, to say the least.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#115

Post by dbrgn »

civilized wrote: post #13
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?

They could also just run a SQL database together and it'd be much less complicated and more efficient.

Certificate transparency logs are essentially a blockchain. Would you prefer Google and the other stakeholders to run an SQL database instead, containing these logs?

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#116

Post by smt88 »

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 really don't ever remember a technology that has created such a visceral reaction from people.

I don't remember a technology that has attracted such an incredibly irritating fanbase. Twitter is unusable because of crypto shills. Even someone genuinely curious about crypto is probably going to assume that it's all a dumpster fire because of the absolute scum on Twitter that spam every thread with crypto nonsense.

If it weren't for those people, I can guarantee the technology itself would not have broken through to mainstream consciousness. In and of itself, it's not a particularly polarizing thing.

Of course, the outrage of the original cryptocurrency (Bitcoin) essentially being "proof of burning fossil fuels" isn't helping either.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#117

Post by mcv »

DrBazza wrote: post #79
mcv wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

Interesting. So the one useful application of blockchain technology is the one application that's not commonly called blockchain.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#118

Post by knorker »

junofan wrote: post #99
Grustaf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's still a need for them though. Societies still want to do AML/KYC stuff, and tax audits.

In fact bitcoin makes it harder[1], so we probably need MORE people doing these investigations.

So we actually maybe need millions MORE people to work these things.

[1] mostly. In some ways also easier. But probably on net harder.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#119

Post by paulgb »

mike_d wrote: post #62
paulgb wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We’re ultimately arguing semantics, but I think this is a pretty clear case where both conventional and academic usage of “blockchain” implies a consensus mechanism in addition to an append-only data structure. Certificate chains and Merkle trees existed long before the term blockchain was popularized.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#120

Post by Andrew_nenakhov »

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/

For me, bitcoin solves very real problems that I wouldn't be able to solve without it: getting paid circumventing Putin's banking system.
Post reply on HN