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

21–30 of 153 posts

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

#21

Post by mavhc »

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…

Why shouldn't you ignore feedback that's ill informed, reactionary, or just wrong?

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

#22

Post by sdiacom »

emptysongglass wrote: post #9
h4kor wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn't true. A blockchain powers Secure Scuttlebutt, Jami, Urbit, and has use anywhere a verified supply chain is needed. Because some people have politicized it, now all blockchains are scams or "useless". But this is demonstrably not true. It's just a technology and people have misused it but that doesn't render the technology itself useless or a scam.

Correct, but the word "blockchain" has two meanings. You're talking about the technology known as blockchain. The blogpost is not about the technology known as blockchain, it's about the grift known as blockchain. Here's how you tell the difference:

When a project has a problem that needs solving, and they look for a solution to that problem, and the right solution happens to be a blockchain-like system, then we're talking about the technology known as blockchain.

If the problem these projects are trying to solve isn't how to scam people, the project will usually intentionally avoid using the word "blockchain", like Scuttlebutt and Jami do, and instead refer to their solution with terms such as "cryptographically-verified append-only ledger"

They do this because, when other people hear "blockchain", they usually either hear "this will be used to scam me" or "I can use this to scam others". Because they're thinking about the grift known as blockchain, not about the (relatively obscure by comparison) technology known as blockchain.

When a project says they're looking into how a combination of blockchain and their project could be useful, they're not trying to solve any problem. They've decided they want to transform their existing project into a scam, using the grift known as blockchain.

If they are interested in solving a problem, they'll talk about the problem, and how they solve it using something similar to the technology known as blockchain. If they're interested in scamming you, they'll talk about the grift known as blockchain, and ask you to use your imagination to envision for them how the technology known as blockchain will help the project, while they stick their hands in your pockets.

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

#23

Post by chopin »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #11
sdiacom wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The mere mention of "combining existing successful open-source product with blockchain" should get about the same reaction as "combining fruit bowls with metal spikes". This is a good thing, it means that people are waking up to what crypto actually is. There is no successful or interesting combination of "useful thing" and "blockchain", unless your definition of success is siphoning money from technologically…

You just exemplified their point. original post: we're not talking about crypto comment: they're not talking about crypto but people still just say "F them crypto is bad!" this comment: F them because crypto is bad! Crypto (money, nfts) is bad, I think smart contracts are a mistake too, and I don't think LO needs blockchain either, but the objection is more like the one someone else said about, if there's some featur…

The OP is about talking with Ether and I rather associate crypto with that than blockchain.

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

#24

Post by sdiacom »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #11
sdiacom wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The mere mention of "combining existing successful open-source product with blockchain" should get about the same reaction as "combining fruit bowls with metal spikes". This is a good thing, it means that people are waking up to what crypto actually is. There is no successful or interesting combination of "useful thing" and "blockchain", unless your definition of success is siphoning money from technologically…

You just exemplified their point. original post: we're not talking about crypto comment: they're not talking about crypto but people still just say "F them crypto is bad!" this comment: F them because crypto is bad! Crypto (money, nfts) is bad, I think smart contracts are a mistake too, and I don't think LO needs blockchain either, but the objection is more like the one someone else said about, if there's some featur…

They are talking about crypto, though. What do you think the Ethereum foundation does? Wax poetry about Merkle trees?

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

#25

Post by manholio »

Brian_K_White wrote: post #11
sdiacom wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good. The mere mention of "combining existing successful open-source product with blockchain" should get about the same reaction as "combining fruit bowls with metal spikes". This is a good thing, it means that people are waking up to what crypto actually is. There is no successful or interesting combination of "useful thing" and "blockchain", unless your definition of success is siphoning money from technologically…

You just exemplified their point. original post: we're not talking about crypto comment: they're not talking about crypto but people still just say "F them crypto is bad!" this comment: F them because crypto is bad! Crypto (money, nfts) is bad, I think smart contracts are a mistake too, and I don't think LO needs blockchain either, but the objection is more like the one someone else said about, if there's some featur…

The only revolutionary thing blockchains enable is decentralized electronic cash and financial assets, which are fundamentally bad ideas, and the reaction is justified.

Any other "blockchain" related innovation is just a solution in search of a problem with the real purpose of pumping some virtual asset and selling it off in volume to other speculators. Anything you claim can be done with blockchains (other than decentralized finance) can be more easily done with databases, PKI, hashtrees, ZKPs and other technologies that exist for decades, and that includes smart contracts and anonymous & decentralized communication.

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

#26

Post by sdiacom »

hiq wrote: post #17
emptysongglass wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't true. A blockchain powers Secure Scuttlebutt, Jami, Urbit, and has use anywhere a verified supply chain is needed. Because some people have politicized it, now all blockchains are scams or "useless". But this is demonstrably not true. It's just a technology and people have misused it but that doesn't render the technology itself useless or a scam.

> A blockchain powers Secure Scuttlebutt https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Scuttlebutt doesn't have the word blockchain on it, and from reading the protocol section, I don't think it uses a public blockchain as defined there: https://www.schneier.com/essays/archives/2019/02/theres_no_g... So you're just talking about something else, but as Schneier argues, anything other than a public blockchain is nothing new and…

Per the Wikipedia article:

> User content in SSB is organized as an append-only sequence of immutable messages, where messages cryptographically sign adjacent messages for the purpose of guaranteeing unforgeabilitity of the sequences as they are replicated to other peers.

That's pretty much a blockchain. Of course, they don't call it a blockchain themselves, because the Scuttlebutt people are not running a grift, they're creating a communication protocol that happens to use cryptographic primitives similarly to how blockchains use them.

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

#27

Post by theCrowing »

web3isgoing wrote: post #18

You would think a message board called "hacker news" would be more open to blue sky thinking. Zero knowledge proofs and a tamper proof ledger of timestamped cryptographic signatures could open up new use cases that are different than relying on central authorities. One idea, document signing: vitalik.eth signs a PDF, everybody can verify the PDF is signed by his private key. He has to broadcast his public key for thi…

You never interacted with hackers right? Here in Germany most of the CCC members are quite the realists there isn't much bluesky thinking done without any merit.

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

#29

Post by miohtama »

sdiacom wrote: post #24
Brian_K_White wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You just exemplified their point. original post: we're not talking about crypto comment: they're not talking about crypto but people still just say "F them crypto is bad!" this comment: F them because crypto is bad! Crypto (money, nfts) is bad, I think smart contracts are a mistake too, and I don't think LO needs blockchain either, but the objection is more like the one someone else said about, if there's some featur…

They are talking about crypto, though. What do you think the Ethereum foundation does? Wax poetry about Merkle trees?

You can find out what Ethereum Foundation does e.g. here

https://esp.ethereum.foundation/about

“ ESP focuses on strengthening Ethereum's foundations and enabling future builders: improving infrastructure, expanding the range of tools available to those building on Ethereum, deepening our understanding of cryptographic primitives, and growing the builder ecosystem through education and community development. The work we support is open source, non-commercial and built for positive sum outcomes.”

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

#30

Post by Macha »

web3isgoing wrote: post #18

You would think a message board called "hacker news" would be more open to blue sky thinking. Zero knowledge proofs and a tamper proof ledger of timestamped cryptographic signatures could open up new use cases that are different than relying on central authorities. One idea, document signing: vitalik.eth signs a PDF, everybody can verify the PDF is signed by his private key. He has to broadcast his public key for thi…

Hacker News has historically been very open to blockchain ideas. I'd wager that without HN's contribution, it would not have been well known enough to get picked up by silk road which is really when it went from toy project to normal people caring. Even after that, I think many of the early blockchain for X startups got good press here and there is a decent chunk of HNers employed in the blockchain.

So I don't think negative reactions to blockchain articles on HN started as some sort of kneejerk conservatism, rather HN has seen the entire lifecycle of blockchain so far and what we've seen has exhausted the opening goodwill towards the concept for many users

Post reply on HN