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

251–260 of 392 posts

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#251

Post by Grustaf »

themacguffinman wrote: post #199
Grustaf wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Clever reframing, but when you choose such a different way with clear downsides, it's on you to justify it. It would have been the responsibility of the founders of Uber to explain to stakeholders why they were justified in running a taxi service without owning cars. Just like if I point out that you're not wearing pants, I'm generally expecting the response to explain why that's justified for me to continue standing…

I think they have been pretty clear about what they think the upside is: decentralisation. No need to trust banks and governments.

Obviously you don't think it's a good trade-off, but they do.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#252

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

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?

If people used wire transfers for online payments the same issues would arise. Using Bitcoin natively on layer-1 for online payments is like using wire transfers. Semi-custodial or layer-2 options will compete with credit cards.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#253

Post by tsimionescu »

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…

Decentralization does not require bitcoin. There are trust-based decentralized payment networks much older than the transistor. These could be digitized as well, but computing circles have relatively little interest in decentralization+trust.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#254

Post by dmitriid »

Grustaf wrote: post #241
dmitriid wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is not necessarily a flaw in technology". When is the last time you needed to debug the contract when you buy coffee?

Why would you need to involve a smart contract to buy coffee?

Coffee is just an extreme example.

The actual example I usually go for is selling/buying an apartment. I'm currently in Sweden, and I've gone through the process twice now. The contracts were several pages if clear text that even I, with my rudimentary knowledge of Swedish could understand. Good luck checking that everything is correct with a "smart contract" version.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#255

Post by mattwilsonn888 »

coldtea wrote: post #220
sakopov wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain is just a decentralized ledger of transactions. A cryptocurrency is an implementation of digital currency using a blockchain. Blaming blockchain for not having fraud prevention tech is like blaming TCP/IP stack for delivering a scam email to your inbox. This is a problem to be solved in a higher layer, which we're seemingly nowhere near as we're still just trying to get blockchain to scale efficiently.

> Blockchain is just a decentralized ledger of transactions. A cryptocurrency is an implementation of digital currency using a blockchain. Blaming blockchain for not having fraud prevention tech is like blaming TCP/IP stack for delivering a scam email to your inbox. It's more like blaming a water utility company that doesn't give potable water, and its supporters tell you "but you can always buy a bottle of water fro…

That's not true. A bank does not allow universal and unquestioning withdrawal nor does it truly require user consent to complete transactions. Clever cryptography makes it possible to do both building on top of Bitcoin or whatever ledger has the desired security and feature set.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#256

Post by mattdesl »

trinovantes wrote: post #231
mattdesl wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, “just trust Amazon or Google” which is centrally owned, and not peer-to-peer (distributed/decentralized), and not an answer to my question. > You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as…

So how do you coordinate this so called decentralized transaction? Over the internet through SSL certs that are centrally signed? You're still putting blind trust in something.

Transactions are broadcast with RPC. Once accepted and written to the ledger (ie: after a number of confirmations), you can verify the state of the transaction via your own local node.

It is impossible to completely remove the need for trust. We trust that our computers work as expected, that our modems and routers are not compromised, that RPC endpoints and software is running as expected, that the internet infrastructure in our country is sending messages correctly.

The blockchain isn’t a catch-all solution to our need to trust things in life. But it does allow us to, say, record and alter global state without placing it in the control of a single centralized intermediary.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#257

Post by captainbland »

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…

This is true. I suppose what is important to me is that cryptocurrencies solve the problem that they set out to solve, but the problem they have defined seems to be based on a lot of shaky premises (e.g. a volatile, deflationary currency is useful) and set in a world that doesn't exist (one with limitless green energy and no fraud).

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#258

Post by Grustaf »

coldtea wrote: post #208
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. Doesn't matter if "it was a goal". It should have been a goal, and it's necessary (doesn't have to be perfect, but absolutely has to exist) for anything wanting to be used as a means of exchange in a modern economy, outside of Mad Max situations and speculation. > Clearly people feel it is a p…

> It should have been a goal, and it's necessary (doesn't have to be perfect, but absolutely has to exist) for anything wanting to be used as a means of exchange in a modern economy, outside of Mad Max situations and speculation.

Why are you the one to decide what should have been a goal? And aren't you aware that a lot of people do live in Mad Max like scenarios? Even in a modern country like Argentina the currency is in free fall, not to mention many unstable African countries.

Not to mention that Trudeau let the cat out of the bag, you can't even trust that teddybear of a country with your money if you say something the government doesn't like.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#259

Post by mattdesl »

RandomLensman wrote: post #247
mattdesl wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you are suggesting sounds like a consensus mechanism. How do you safely choose which peers to assign this responsibility? How do you ensure it is resistant to a Sybil attack? Suddenly the answers begin to look a lot like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.

The answer could or could not look like that. In practice people have done this many times throughout history totally without blockchains (or computers) for that matter (e.g., money transfer systems, exchanges, etc.).

If this has been done many times in a way that solves my original question (decentralized escrow), there should be some concrete examples you can point to besides blockchain/crypto systems.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#260

Post by ahartmetz »

ddjsn111 wrote: post #43
bbno4 wrote: post #25

i am so sick and tired of hackernews upvoting every single "blockchain bad" article to the top that contains non-sensical and wrong information

Yep, I think it's because the HN archetype is a person who held the moral high ground on early crypto being a "scam" for normies, despite understanding it fundamentally, and those same folks are now feeling upset they didn't "get in" in time.

So you are saying that people only dislike the ponzi scheme because they didn't get in early enough. Is that your ethics or these other people's?

FWIW I do own some crypto money, but it's nothing more than a casino game with positive expected winnings to me.

Post reply on HN