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

221–230 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#221

Post by z3c0 »

5h wrote: post #153
z3c0 wrote: post #114

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…

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…

And you've set yourself up for an answer;)

I think any adversarial system has something to gain from blockchain. When participants of a system are naturally pitted against one another due to being competitors (a la engaging in a zero-sum game), the solution is usually to agree to auditing by a third-party. However, this method is easily corruptible by replacing the auditors with biased parties[1]. This is not an uncommon problem. Try searching "biased auditors", and you'll get a wealth of literature and perspectives on the issue.

A lot of blockchain proponents are majorly against the idea of "private blockchains", but I'm not. I believe private blockchains hold a lot of promise as a way of auditing an adversarial system, in place of a corruptible third-party. Plus, auditors don't amount to much more than middle-men, and thus add an additional layer of complexity to the system, meaning more can go wrong. Redirecting the cost of auditors to maintaining a system hosted by the adversaries would result in a more lean system (by less nodes) with little chance of bias corrupting the audit process (because you can't inject former employees into a blockchain). Instead of the SEC having to oversee both the members of the network and the auditors to prevent trusts from forming, they would just need to monitor the blockchain updates.

What the technical implementation of this would look like would vary wildly by industry, and thus would require some brainstorming to ensure feasibility, but no such brainstorming would ever begin if the members of an adversarial system are convinced that blockchains are "dangerous nonsense".

Of course, such a technology would take a massive chunk from a very profitable industry, so I expect a lot of people (employed auditors) to be averse to the idea, but maybe those people need to do some soul-searching. When your job depends on the continued existence of a problem, you aren't really incentivized to diminish the problem. Rape-whistle companies sell less rape-whistles if people rape less.

[1] https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/ernst-young-auditors-to-pay-...

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#222

Post by Eisfunke »

virgildotcodes wrote: post #175

Please run this article through a spellcheck. There are just about 1-2 typos per paragraph through the piece, and it's extremely distracting. Example of two typos in two consecutive sentences: >Blinded by the shine of the *enrmous* revenues of the crypto bubble, a lot of companies and government organizations look over that. *Everbody* wants a piece of the tasty blockchain cake and tries to shove a little blockchain…

You're right, sorry. Most typos should be fixed now. I made the translation into English in a rush and didn't think of running it through a spellcheck beforehand. Thanks for reminding me!

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#223

Post by scotty79 »

okintheory wrote: post #55
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…

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?

Maybe in US. In Europe people pay a lot with money transfer and payments are considered to be mostly irreversible. Banks don't take responsibility for your mistakes (like typos or getting scammed).

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#224

Post by FabHK »

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…

Bitcoin has two innovations in my view:

1. Technological innovation: distributed ledger with trust-less consensus. However, that innovation is largely unnecessary for almost all practical purposes, and it leads to resource use that is about a billion times higher than without that innovation (due to duplicated work and Proof of Waste).

2. Legal/process/social innovation: circumvention of rules and regulations, like Uber. Some people love that innovation, some people think it is rather harmful.

Personally, I think encrypted and uncensorable flow of information is a net positive, and should be retained. Encrypted and uncensorable flow of money, not so sure.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#225

Post by Gertio »

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…

Just because it's getting ignored, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.

I bring that up on all Blockchain discussions.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#226

Post by ulzeraj »

dmitriid wrote: post #82
Grustaf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not necessarily a flaw in the technology, it's just one way in which it differs from what we are used to. I think most coiners, who skew strongly libertarian, would argue that it's up to you to make sure your smart contracts work.

> I think most coiners, who skew strongly libertarian, would argue that it's up to you to make sure your smart contracts work. Ah yes, it's up to the user to review and debug code written in an esoteric programming language to make sure that it works... When even creators of said contracts can't find bugs in their code and fall prey to mistakes (sometimes after multiple audits)

That's correct. Smart contracts are absolutely bleeding edge features that work on top of an Ethereum-like chain which by itself doesn't mind advancing the roadmap even if something breaks. People should be advised about that before participating in smart contracts, which unfortunately doesn't always happen due to greed and hype.

It doesn't mean however that we should just throw everything blockchain cryptocurrency related into the same sack and say its nonsense.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#227

Post by swalsh »

tsimionescu wrote: post #148
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.

Are you implying that block chains solve this? So, I can buy a car from someone I don't trust by using a blockchain, with no need to rely on courts or other third parties?

A digital car... yeah.

The more i've tried to hack with smart contracts for physical stuff, the more I realize that's not what it's good for. But if you stop thinking of the physical world, and only think of the digital world, and you use a modern chain (I use avax). It works pretty good. I think there's a few missing pieces of infrastructure still, but the people who "are in it to build, and not for the money" (I include myself in this) stick around to build what I consider the first purely digital economy.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#228

Post by FabHK »

q3k wrote: post #215
ohthehugemanate wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always thought the grocery supply chain was a good example use case. Multiple parties (seed origin, farmer, fertilizer manufacturer and/or dispenser, pesticide manufacturer and/or crop duster, harvester, transporter(s), grocery association, grocer) who all handle any given tomato, all with incentive and opportunity to lie to some other members along the chain, but not to their immediate neighbors. Plus, even who th…

How do you tie real world tomatoes to NFT tomatoes? Who verifies this? How do you tie an NFT of a grassfed chicken to a real world grassfed chicken? Who verifies these chickens are actually grass fed?

You don't understand. People didn't have tomatoes and grass-fed chicken until Blockchain came along and solved these problems. /s

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#229

Post by bouncycastle »

The article says that the trust is being shifted from humans to code, ("in code we trust"),

However, that's NOT true with blockchains.

For public blockchains, the trust is still with humans. The only difference is that there are many more humans who are looking after the open-sourced code, verifying the databases, checking the transactions. Participation is opt-in, and anyone can look in, and since there are many humans participating in it, it is very hard to change something.

Therefore, we do not simply trust the code. We put trust in decentralization, and make sure that power is not concentrated by just a few humans.

In contrast, our legacy financial system is mostly digital now, and it's a giant back box. All of the code is closed source, we can never review it, yet we are forced to participate in it. The data of our legacy financial system is stored in centralized databases that only a few unelected officials control and gate-keep.

Decentralization is the main feature.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#230

Post by hiq »

mattdesl wrote: post #178
hiq wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your example only works because you're considering an asset that lives in the blockchain itself. So it doesn't apply to anything physical, as in this case, you need a trusted channel to transfer the asset anyway, and a blockchain doesn't solve that. Even considering only these digital assets, you have an implicit notion of trust. The xyz.eth representation on the Ethereum blockchain is considered valuable because mos…

The whole point is peer to peer transfer of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain . The goal is not “how to transfer a physical asset.” These assets do have market value (despite your own personal feeling on what they “should” be worth) and so users do wish to find ways of interacting with and trading them without an intermediary. The TLD/ICANN is irrelevant, as “.eth” is a construct for Ethereum…

> The whole point is peer to peer transfer of digital assets and digital state that is recorded on-chain. The goal is not “how to transfer a physical asset.”

Yes I understood where you were going. Just pointing out that the scope of the problem you're solving is way smaller than that of a generic transaction, to the point that it has very little relevance for pretty much anything real.

> The TLD/ICANN is irrelevant, as “.eth” is a construct for Ethereum clients, not HTTPS clients.

What do you think would happen to the value of the xyz.eth domain registered on Ethereum if ICANN decided to have .eth as a TLD and somebody made a website on a xyz.eth reachable natively via mainstream browsers?

This value would decrease, independently of what actually happens on the blockchain. Value doesn't exist independently from the real world.

Trusting a certain smart contract about what's at xyz.eth rather than another is also arbitrary and is a matter of social capital, again something that's not embedded within the blockchain.

Post reply on HN