191–200 of 392 posts
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.
Blockchain is a perfect example, how tech folks want resolve humanitarians problems/issues with _tech_ solution. (Spoiler) It doesn't work
Citation needed.
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…
[0] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Purchases, perhaps. Money transfer, definitely not. Bitcoin is a pretty cheap way to transfer money across international borders. A person probably wouldn't use bitcoin at the grocery store to buy milk, but it works better for sending grandma (located in a third world country) a bunch of money.
Bitcoin is still more expensive than the banking system among first-world countries. How much can it be worth to send money to third-world countries of no banks are willing to set up there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You've set yourself up for a question: Please give an example, with a deeper-lever perspective, of a real-world use-case for (non-crypto) blockchain that isn't better solved with non-blockchain technology. Edit to answer this question: > What about this is intrinsically "dangerous nonsense"? The article isn't about the tech itself, it's about the interfaces of the tech and the real world. The problems there are shame…
"it is the only known solution to the Byzantine Generals problem that doesn't involve a centralized authority" Did you skip that one on purpose? How do non-blockchain technologies solve the the Byzantine General's problem without relying on a (corrupt) central authority? Address this before you make more demands.
Math or not, police & courts overrule them.
Actually, blockchain isn't even mathematically a solution to BGP, is it? You need to define your actors better, here.
A 51% attack means communication can be denied. And there's still the question of how does A know that B has seen that A has seen, that B has seen…
Am I missing something?
The fact that communication happens on the blockchain doesn't mean it's not communication.
I just read a couple of articles about blockchain and BGP, and I think they all misunderstood what BGP is.
I'm A, and see that B is "committed on the blockchain to attack, assuming A is too". I can then add my block that says "I see B commits to attack. I agree let's both do this. I'll attack if you attack".
Ok. So now B sees that. Do they attack?
If you think the answer here is clear, then you've misunderstood BGP.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Depending where you live, can do that in traditional banking mobile phone apps pretty fast. The instant transfers with the European SEPA are up to €100k, I think, and they need maybe a few seconds (max. 10s AFAIK). Not sure what the use cases for high frequency cash transfer in sub second space are.
Unfortunately the podcast was recorded in the US. For people sending money domestically in the US, like SBF was proposing, it's more likely to be 1-2 business days of latency (so add 2-3 days to that if you happen to try to send it on the last weekday of the week, naturally) and consumer banks commonly prevent such transactions from occurring at all. For example they may impose much smaller limits on the daily amount…
There are usually lower limits on daily transfer here as well, but you can change them. I think €100k is more a system limit, but I might be wrong.
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…
An internet with a door fee is a failed internet, I hope the web3 bubble bursts before we lose anything
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't matter if crypto advocates are aware of it, these arguments are for other people to understand. The argument is well-known because it's incredibly valid and common for people to want protection against those problems of fraud. When people point out that you're not wearing any pants, "uh I know I'm not wearing any pants" doesn't really address the relevant concern.
Of course it does. It's like saying "but Uber doesn't own any cars, they can't run a taxi service". There are pros and cons with their approach, and you might prefer the traditional way, but they purposely chose another way.
There's no part of the article that ever said crypto people aren't aware of this problem, it pointed out the problem. It's a problem. "I have intentionally chosen a path that runs into this glaring problem" is not helpful or interesting at all. If you have nothing more to say beyond "they know", then I guess I don't have anything more to say either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I might trust someone enough to give them $20. I might not trust someone enough to enter my credit card details on their webpage.
The technical solution to that is temporary CC numbers, not a giant crypto chain.
I was just trying to point out that trust is not binary.