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

Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

as1ndu.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 330 posts

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#181

Post by jcfrei »

ashtonkem wrote: post #155
hannob wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Blockchain is a fancy word for something like a Git repository?

We’re now in the phase where the underlying technical term is being diluted down to meaninglessness in order to dodge around the well publicized failures of specific examples.

I'm absolutely aware of the shortcomings of the currently most popular blockchain technologies. But calling specific implementations (like Bitcoin or Ethereum) a failure when people are paying thousands of dollars each block to use it is pretty bold.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#182

Post by canoebuilder »

spopejoy wrote: post #154
canoebuilder wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but the industry being built around it is very real even if niche. There's a lot going on (including research) What are some concrete examples? I think most of us who are critical are still interested, because we do see things that are going on, and we ask ourselves, are we missing something? But we seem to run into the same road blocks again and again. “Solutions” seem to come from people subtly or transparently “…

I think smart contracts are actually extremely novel in the form they take in Ethereum EVM, Tezos, Cardano, DAML and Pact (I'm author of the latter). TBH I'm a little frustrated with the evolution of smart contract langs post-2017, as I think Ethereum's dominance has made most engs/projects uninterested in innovating. If you look around, it's actually very hard to find a genuinely small language you can embed in your…

>But this is already too long :)

Not at all, I appreciate the info.

Cardano I believe uses PoS of some sort.

What is the thinking about what keeps these distributed application servers running? Is it still mainly the mining reward model?

What sort of applications most excite you? Are there places the distributed model works better than the traditional? Are there applications the distributed model enables that the traditional does not?

And vice versa, what are the limitations of the distributed model? What things just aren't feasible? Could you build Twitter or YouTube like systems?

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#183

Post by hanniabu »

RurouniK wrote: post #34
prof-dr-ir wrote: post #6

The "lack of intuitive private key management" is worth expanding on. Would it not be nice if you could, maybe for a small fee, have some trusted entity store your private key for you? One could perhaps imagine storing a printout of the private key in some kind of physical "safe deposit" box, to be maintained by such an entity? But maybe that is to cumbersome and we can do so entirely digitally? In that case I guess…

How is private key management a problem when there are so many battle tested hardware wallets used by millions of people?

They have no basis. They want to detest it without learning. Either that or they looked into it a few years ago and have no idea how much has changed since then.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#184

Post by lottin »

mikegreenberg wrote: post #160
lottin wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, but it's an artificial scarcity. Like you say, these assets are only scarce because all the participants agree that they're scarce. This is different from physical objects, which are scarce because of the laws of nature.

I'm not sure why that distinction is important. Value is realized in use of a complete product and are not represented by the sum of its parts. (Value is not zero sum. A log and a plank together can arguably provide more value as a slope than the log and the plank can provide value on their own.) Sure, you can decompose the system to remove artificial scarcity, but that's part of the product. The market has manifeste…

I have no idea what you're talking about :(

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#185

Post by playingchanges »

throw0101a wrote: post #135
RurouniK wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market cap is a counter argument because it shows the trust people, and lately corporations put into Bitcoin as a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation. The market cap proves that bitcoin/blockchain/cryptocurrency enthusiasts put their money where their mouth is.

> The market cap is a counter argument because it shows the trust people See also Enron, WorldCom, Nortel, Bre-X (for the Canadians out there). > […] and lately corporations put into Bitcoin as a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation. Given its volatility, I'm not sure how useful it is as a store of wealth. Less than a year ago it lost half its value in two days (before the recent run-up): * https://www.cnbc.…

Funny I actually viewed the 2020 BTC drawdown (and subsequent rapid recovery) as my number one buy signal for the current crypto bull market. In a time period when the Dow loses almost 13% in a single day and the fed has to use every move in the playbook to maintain liquidity, crypto holds its own with no fed assistance at all.

As for inflation, I’m guessing the exact opposite argument to yours was being made in the 80s.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#186

Post by hanniabu »

ezoe wrote: post #110

I think price volatility is the only reason it's not working as a normal currency. Right now, these blockchain currencies are traded just like expensive wine, art or gold bar. It's a speculative money game. We can't use wine or art to buy some food for today. Most people don't even run the full node themselves. They relies on somebody else's node. In good term, they are investing, in other words, they are gambling. I…

It's a new asset class so it's in a huge growth phase. Over time it's volatility is beginning less and less and will continue to do so as the market matures.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#187

Post by jcfrei »

canoebuilder wrote: post #124
jcfrei wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the typical argument on a very technical board such as HN where blockchain is synonymous with a specific implementation. But that's an outdated way to think about blockchains. Yes, Bitcoin's implementation is a huge resource hog and slow. But for most newer projects "blockchain" just means an auditable trail of state changes. Whether you implement this with the shiniest newest db paradigm or some simple SQL d…

> However the fact that we now have a global consensus over the ownership of digital assets that's something new and valuable. It's also completely contrived. Being digital means infinitely replicable, or thereabouts. Do we really need this game of artificial scarcity? People used to talk about things like property records, but if this realm of artificial scarcity is going to interface with the realm of actual scarci…

For the record, I don't think code will be law, ie. that blockchains will replace our current system of adjudication. Rather smart contracts will be changed to allow for an interface with the current system, for example via a master key held by the originator of the smart contract.

Regarding your second point: Look into newer projects like Solana, Polkadot or Cardano which are already live and have much better scalability.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#188

Post by gjvc »

canoebuilder wrote: post #124
jcfrei wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the typical argument on a very technical board such as HN where blockchain is synonymous with a specific implementation. But that's an outdated way to think about blockchains. Yes, Bitcoin's implementation is a huge resource hog and slow. But for most newer projects "blockchain" just means an auditable trail of state changes. Whether you implement this with the shiniest newest db paradigm or some simple SQL d…

> However the fact that we now have a global consensus over the ownership of digital assets that's something new and valuable. It's also completely contrived. Being digital means infinitely replicable, or thereabouts. Do we really need this game of artificial scarcity? People used to talk about things like property records, but if this realm of artificial scarcity is going to interface with the realm of actual scarci…

> Code is law.

What does this mean?

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#189

Post by wizzwizz4 »

jcfrei wrote: post #181
ashtonkem wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re now in the phase where the underlying technical term is being diluted down to meaninglessness in order to dodge around the well publicized failures of specific examples.

I'm absolutely aware of the shortcomings of the currently most popular blockchain technologies. But calling specific implementations (like Bitcoin or Ethereum) a failure when people are paying thousands of dollars each block to use it is pretty bold.

I don't think something's success or failure hinges on whether rich people like it.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#190

Post by ashtonkem »

jcfrei wrote: post #181
ashtonkem wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We’re now in the phase where the underlying technical term is being diluted down to meaninglessness in order to dodge around the well publicized failures of specific examples.

I'm absolutely aware of the shortcomings of the currently most popular blockchain technologies. But calling specific implementations (like Bitcoin or Ethereum) a failure when people are paying thousands of dollars each block to use it is pretty bold.

> But calling specific implementations (like Bitcoin or Ethereum) a failure when people are paying thousands of dollars each block to use it is pretty bold.

And people were willing to pay hundreds of dollars for plush toys with the appropriate tags preserved in plastic. Bubbles are a thing, and the crowd can be wrong. To pretend otherwise is silly.

More fundamentally, the original promise of Bitcoin was that it would act like a currency. It has failed at this. You can tell because all of the advocates have shifted over from “money of the future” to “it’s a store of value”; a subtle admission that it’s not actually functioning like a currency.

Post reply on HN