Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

blog.documentfoundation.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 153 posts

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#142

Post by manholio »

kuramitropolis wrote: post #120
manholio wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Another alternative is these messages are broadcast through a public and decentralized ledger. Trouble is, the "decentralized ledger" can only reliably timestamp if there is a financial incentive that motivates peers to burn hashes, stake and vouch for blocks etc. Without that financial incentive the whole blockchain breaks down to something inferior to even the PKI distributed systems described by Lamport in the 7…

>they require native minted tokens of speculative value to operate. Well, so does the rest of industry and civilization (fiat money). What's the distinction there?

The distinction is between something that costs money and competes in the maketplace based on that, versus something so insanely expensive the only way it can compete is to pretend it prints actual money and speculate on their future value.

If Bitcoin didn't have bitcoins, nobody in their right mind would pay to an electricity bill the size of Argentina just to keep it running as a distributed timestamping ledger. There is no imaginable practical application that would justify that resource waste.

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#143

Post by prepend »

indigochill wrote: post #104
prepend wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Document signing is a good potential use case. The current transaction fee is $.50 [0] so that’s not too bad to securely sign a document. There’s a separate issue of verifying and identity proofing wallets. But I think blockchain actually helps solve the problem with pgp of trusting unknown identities and key exchange. Currently if a document is pgp signed by John Doe, I’ve got to figure out if it’s really John Doe a…

> I’ve got to figure out if it’s really John Doe and that’s a bit of work if I don’t already have John’s public key. Maybe a dumb question, but assuming a scenario where you have a concept of "really John Doe", isn't there always some authoritative source on what that means that you could use to obtain John's public key (whether that's some user registry, direct contact with John, etc)?

I don’t know of an authoritative source. You can pay verisign or commercial entities to track this.

All the blockchain serves as is an agreed upon common entity that isn’t controlled by a particular company.

It would be nice if governments would issue keypairs and serve as an authoritative source. Sadly, I’ve been waiting 25 years.

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#147

Post by ekianjo »

SylvieLorxu wrote: post #146

Update: LibreOffice has prepended the blog post with a note that they decided to abandon any Blockchain plans and deleted the tweet on https://twitter.com/LibreOffice/status/1592462972575952898 .

People can't discuss words these days, because they have become taboo. What a poor state of affairs.

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#148

Post by ekianjo »

Sakos wrote: post #8
pyr0hu wrote: post #2

I don't know, talking about blockchain became such an extreme topic that one can't just talk about it, even if it's a note that "We had a chat with Eth Foundation" and people are coming with foaming mouth. The article does not mention that they are thinking about _crypto_ but _blockchain_, which, seems like not a lot of people know about, does not 100% means "im going to release a shitcoin, haha, rugpull". It's insan…

I'm open to the idea that blockchain might somehow be useful for something somehow in the future. I don't see what LibreOffice could gain from blockchain. I also think it's telling that they'd rather ignore the negative feedback because they want to apparently continue on this path than actually recognize that people don't want blockchain garbage ruining what's otherwise a good project. I'm looking forward to the nex…

> I'm open to the idea that blockchain might somehow be useful for something somehow in the future. I don't see what LibreOffice could gain from blockchain.

It's not because you can't imagine anything that nobody else can.

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#149

Post by ekianjo »

h4kor wrote: post #3
pyr0hu wrote: post #2

I don't know, talking about blockchain became such an extreme topic that one can't just talk about it, even if it's a note that "We had a chat with Eth Foundation" and people are coming with foaming mouth. The article does not mention that they are thinking about _crypto_ but _blockchain_, which, seems like not a lot of people know about, does not 100% means "im going to release a shitcoin, haha, rugpull". It's insan…

Because there are no use cases for blockchains. Humanity spent billions (trillions?) of $ on this technology and there is no use for it. Now the people who sank their money into this, desperately try to find some fools to pass the hot potato to.

> there is no use for it.

No use for it? The blockchain is a massive achievement. It's a decentralized verification system. Of course it has plenty of uses beyond crypto currencies.

Re: LibreOffice blogs about Blockchain, locks comments after negative user feedback

#150

Post by heather45879 »

sdiacom wrote: post #118
heather45879 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain has pretty powerful use cases in the enterprise. Ethereum provides one such solution which allows companies to have a private blockchain and programmable smart contracts in place—and with that a nice internal audit trail as well. Blockchains can use proof-of-authority or proof-of-stake not as a means to accumulate “wealth” but firstly to secure the network from tampering while facilitating the resilient, c…

Distributed programmable Turing machines are indeed very powerful. We're talking through a network of distributed programmable Turing machines right now. It does not involve a blockchain.

Thank God it’s not—lest your tasteless sarcasm would be trapped for all eternity. ;)
Post reply on HN