You Do Not Need Blockchain: Popular Use Cases and Why They Do Not Work

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

aboodman wrote: post #99

gregschlom wrote: post #33

I've said this several times before on this site but will keep repeating it: there's exactly one use case where the blockchain is a superior (and, in fact, the only) solution: when you can't use contracts and the legal system to ensure trust between the parties. In other words, anything illegal. For any other conceivable use case, a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Edit: To clarify wha…

> a database and a contract between parties are a superior solution. Do you believe that this is a permanent state, or a temporary one? Is there a potential blockchain-like thing that could exist which would be better than a database and a contract? Because to me, the current system leaves room for improvement: - resolving conflicts across jurisdictions is extremely expensive - resolving conflicts even within one jur…

Post by nosuchthing » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:19 PM UTC

yarrel wrote: post #135

schoen wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the second case, couldn't Louis Vuitton also host the associated records itself? There are several concepts related to this in other areas: provenance, catalogues raisonnés, serial numbers, title registries, pedigree registries, among others. People who make or who deal in rare or expensive things often adopt some of these mechanisms to help answer questions like: which one is this? is it genuine? who owns it? who…

Unsurprisingly, catalogues raisonnes are a hotbed of legal activity and controversy. Many scholars will now not offer opinions on the authenticity of a work for fear of getting sued: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/20/arts/design/art-scholars-... And works with supposedly excellent provenance still end up being repudiated by authentication committees: https://www.antiquestradegazette.com/news/2011/double-denied... Du…

  By putting your artwork on the "BitCoin Blockchain", 
  Verisart will hand wavy magic increase the trust in 
  art dealers and reduce fraud.


  That's a pretty neat idea. A distributed public ledger of 
  who I have sold my art to. And, if they sell it, they have 
  a cryptographically signed certificate proving its 
  provenance. The seller can sign the certificate with their 
  private key to say they've sold it to the new owner of a 
  specific public key. Nifty!


  Except… and I hate to bring the art industry into 
  disrepute… what if I sell a fake and keep the original in 
  my Underground Vault?


  There's no way to permanently attach a digital certificate 
  to a physical work of art.

  Incidentally, this is the problem with all the startups 
  claiming the blockchain will revolutionise the integrity 
  of global logistics markets. Sure, you can slap a QR code 
  on a crate - but nothing stops an unscrupulous middle-man 
  from replacing or adulterating the contents of the crate.

  Let's get back to Verisart's other issue. Proving that I 
  am the creator or owner of a piece of artwork.


  Long story short, I convinced them that I painted the Mona 
  Lisa.

Post by pdpi » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:20 PM UTC

UncleMeat wrote: post #154

pdpi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchain-the-datastructure is incredibly useful and widely deployed — e.g. Git histories are blockchains (well, a slightly extended version of a blockchain that allows you to represent a DAG, same difference). Blockchain-the-trustless-consensus-protocol has a fundamental challenge that makes it completely and utterly pointless for most applications — the oracle problem. You build up a whole system around a secure t…

Only in a crazy loose sense. Git histories do not have enforced immutability or trustlessness. And they are really merkle trees, which have been around for decades. If blockchains (as described in this manner) are so amazing, why wasn't there hype for merkle trees in 1995?

Post by nosuchthing » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

jcranmer wrote: post #83

nepthar wrote: post #66

Based on reading a few articles like this, I think my understanding of blockchain-related tech is different from other folks and I'm kinda confused. Could some kind soul help clear things up? When I think "blockchain", I basically think of a git branch: history is verifiably immutable and using some external tools like a public rng, one can prove that a block was not created before a certain time. When I think "distr…

Blockchain these days is mostly a hype train terminology. There are three components that come together to make a blockchain, but people will often call their technology blockchain if it meets only some of theses: 1. Merkle tree or some other cryptographic append-only technology. (This is really old, by the way). 2. Proof-of-work. (This was, to my knowledge, first proposed as an anti-spam measure, which incidentally…

Post by UncleEntity » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 7:23 PM UTC

jondubois wrote: post #130

Blockchain is a fractional reserve system which can be used as a payment layer. That's it. The whole point of blockchain tech is to create hype and incentivise collaboration towards a shared financially beneficial goal. Saying that blockchain has no use cases is like saying that money has no use cases. It incentivizes, it corrupts, it buys loyalties, it buys positive news coverage - These are the most important use c…