Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides • Hacker News Board

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#221

Post by dozzie » Tue, Apr 03, 2018, 8:38 PM UTC

kthejoker2 wrote: post #219

dozzie wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very much not what distributed consensus is. You don't "work on the same hard math problem" and you don't get "a reward to encourage further problem solving". Consensus is agreeing on a value among (almost) all protocol participants, and "distributed consensus" is proper technical term, not a vague definition by hand waving like "object oriented programming". Read about Byzantine Generals problem first.

Thanks for everything except the condescension!

Dude, you come to a discussion without knowing the basic concepts. What exactly did you expect?

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#222

Post by EthanHeilman » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 3:04 PM UTC

jason_slack wrote: post #218

EthanHeilman wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are still very much in the experimental phase of the technology and companies are taking many different approaches. Some companies are using Ethereum as their blockchain so they don't have to build and operate one. Other companies are launching blockchains by which they mean a ledger created by a set of trusted validators running a BFT algorithm (see Distributed Systems). Systems built on a trusted set of validato…

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. They really just mean a ledger. Doesn't one lose the trust if the ledger is not distributed and verified by outsiders? Using a trusted set of validators, I assume is an internal operation. They aren't asking "Joe Nobody" off the street to become a trusted validator...

The hope is that the validator set would include many different trustworthy organizations in different parts of the world.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#223

Post by moocowtruck » Wed, Apr 04, 2018, 4:54 PM UTC

EthanHeilman wrote: post #222

jason_slack wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That makes sense. Thanks for explaining. They really just mean a ledger. Doesn't one lose the trust if the ledger is not distributed and verified by outsiders? Using a trusted set of validators, I assume is an internal operation. They aren't asking "Joe Nobody" off the street to become a trusted validator...

The hope is that the validator set would include many different trustworthy organizations in different parts of the world.

could all these validators agree at their own whims to roll back their ledger to undo a change?

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#224

Post by gjmacd » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:12 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #174

gjmacd wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you wouldn't use the blockchain to have control over their data", you'd use it for identity and verification. Facebook' #1 issue is fake news and Bot's. You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.

> You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such. You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities. Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue —…

It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information.

Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides

#225

Post by gjmacd » Wed, Apr 11, 2018, 2:17 PM UTC

jakelazaroff wrote: post #174

gjmacd wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except you wouldn't use the blockchain to have control over their data", you'd use it for identity and verification. Facebook' #1 issue is fake news and Bot's. You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such.

> You can eliminate those problems entirely with a blockchain and smart contract that requires identity and proof of such. You don't think if the problem were that easy to solve, it would be solved already? Throwing blockchain in the mix gets Facebook nothing that it couldn't get today by just partnering with organizations can verify identities. Not to mention, the "fake news" issue isn't largely an identity issue —…

It's as easy as requiring identity, just like you have to for your bank account or credit card information. They'd have to treat your FB account like your checking account.