Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense • Hacker News Board

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#231

Post by trinovantes » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #207

tkfu wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being willfully obtuse here. > What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Literally any trusted central authority or database. > Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus? You haven't actually state…

As usual, “just trust Amazon or Google” which is centrally owned, and not peer-to-peer (distributed/decentralized), and not an answer to my question. > You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as…

So how do you coordinate this so called decentralized transaction? Over the internet through SSL certs that are centrally signed? You're still putting blind trust in something.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#232

Post by RandomLensman » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

mattdesl wrote: post #207

tkfu wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're being willfully obtuse here. > What non-blockchain solution solves the double spend problem when transferring digital assets in a peer-to-peer network? Literally any trusted central authority or database. > Or, in the case of Ethereum, providing solutions to general-purpose decentralized computation and state (rather than only peer-to-peer payments) with such strong public consensus? You haven't actually state…

As usual, “just trust Amazon or Google” which is centrally owned, and not peer-to-peer (distributed/decentralized), and not an answer to my question. > You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as…

Nothing is stopping a peer-to-peer network from having a central database administered by the a randomly selected group of peers, for example.

The bigger issues in pure decentralized and distributed networks in finance are around KYC/CFT etc. Who ensures compliance if there is no control about flow of funds, for example.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#233

Post by z3c0 » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:30 AM UTC

hudon wrote: post #193

z3c0 wrote: post #114

Blockchains are cool. Very, very cool. Merkle trees on their own are pretty cool, and blockchains are just a Merkle tree hashed into a chain-like structure to create work for decentralized verification. This is a very clever concept, and it is the only known solution to the Byzantine Generals problem that doesn't involve a centralized authority (that I'm aware of). What about this is intrinsically "dangerous nonsense…

It does not solve the Byzantine Generals problem... This has been apparent since Satoshi had to fly in to communicate from a place of authority how the protocol should be fixed to address bugs. This happened again after Satoshi's departure in 2013 [0] where the Byzantine Generals had to meet in a chatroom and be the "trusted central party" that the rest of the stakeholders followed. Without the leaders of the space b…

I don't consider forking to be a problem, though it very frequently gets treated like it's some silver bullet to the blockchain concept. Forking is the democratic nature of the system at work. A few key players in the system are not the only "Generals" - everybody acting as a verification node is a General, and which fork they choose to follow is still a decision that they hold. Bitcoin being young and having hiccups prompted people to listen to the "expert generals", but this isn't a function of blockchains, just society overall. Collectively choosing to abandon a long chain in favor of a short chain based on the opinions of experts is a great solution to the permanence of blockchains, which poses its own challenges. Before this incident, it was believed that a blockchain had to be 100% correct upon initialization, and any software developer should realize how much of a pipe-dream that is.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#234

Post by isodev » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

ohthehugemanate wrote: post #101

isodev wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument. These features and capabilities are usually implied for financial systems. It's really just common sense.

to be clear about the semantics here: cash doesn't count as a "financial system", right? Blockchain currencies are basically counterfeit-proof, digital cash with an audit trail. comparing them to credit cards is an apples:oranges comparison.

Sorry if my comment wasn't clear - I wasn't trying to compare cash to credit cards, of course.

Regulation around "cash" transactions are quite strict here (including the definition of a verbal contract etc.), so unless one is engaged in "under the counter" activities, you can benefit from similar protections. Of course, in contrast to credit cards and online transactions, recovery from cash fraud/mistakes is more complicated since you'd need to contact the authorities/the other party yourself and deal with the whole process "manually" (instead of just clicking a button in your bank's web portal and letting them take care of it)

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#235

Post by swalsh » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:31 AM UTC

tirpen wrote: post #84

mike_d wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What technical solution do you have for multiple parties needing to transact where they do not trust each other and cannot depend on a third party or the court system for dispute resolution? I'll wait.

My suggestion is: "grow up". All of human society is based on trust, and it works just fine and has for centuries. Who would even want to live in a trust less society? That sounds like hell.

Trust is a short-cut for the complexities the physical world presents. But in a purely digital world you can build things that doesn't NEED the short-cut. And that's a new capability. It let's you build things not possible before. DeFi exists because trustless transactions are possible. Not everything can and should be trustless, it's just a tool not a new society. But it's SUPER useful.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#236

Post by mattdesl » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:32 AM UTC

RandomLensman wrote: post #232

mattdesl wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As usual, “just trust Amazon or Google” which is centrally owned, and not peer-to-peer (distributed/decentralized), and not an answer to my question. > You're mentioning a .eth domain name being bought with cryptocurrency as an example, which is entirely circular. "Hurr durr, betcha can't swap one blockchain thing (.eth domain) for another blockchain thing (cryptocurrency tokens) without using a blockchain" isn't as…

Nothing is stopping a peer-to-peer network from having a central database administered by the a randomly selected group of peers, for example. The bigger issues in pure decentralized and distributed networks in finance are around KYC/CFT etc. Who ensures compliance if there is no control about flow of funds, for example.

What you are suggesting sounds like a consensus mechanism. How do you safely choose which peers to assign this responsibility? How do you ensure it is resistant to a Sybil attack?

Suddenly the answers begin to look a lot like Proof of Work or Proof of Stake.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#237

Post by FabHK » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:32 AM UTC

HeckFeck wrote: post #195

onion2k wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrible is also the enemy of good.

Yep. That would be the legacy (predatory, inflationary) financial system.

As opposed to Bitcoin, whose money supply grows with over 1.7% a year currently, giving miners around $50m a day to burn coal with.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#238

Post by Andrew_nenakhov » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:34 AM UTC

lakomen wrote: post #213

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me, bitcoin solves very real problems that I wouldn't be able to solve without it: getting paid circumventing Putin's banking system.

What does the Russian president have to do with anything in that context?

He is a dictator who controls money flowing in and out of country, using the tax revenue to fund his regime and wage war. He can't tax or block bitcoin payments, or steal proceeds by forcing foreign currency sale at a very unfair exchange rate.

Bitcoin helps live without paying taxes and fund opposition without repercussions. In fact, cryptocurrency payments are the only way for Russians to fund anti-Putin opposition. So anyone who says that cryptocurrencies are useless, please, kindly, stop saying this nonsense. If you are lucky to be born in a first world country you simply don't know how easily banking can be used to suffocate a person in a (lawless) cashless society. Bitcoin is a hedge against that, and a powerful one.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#239

Post by Grustaf » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:35 AM UTC

thriftwy wrote: post #145

Grustaf wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's immutable, it only needs to be audited once.

Have you ever written any code?

Yes, 10 hours a day, I work at a FAANG.

Just pointing out the advantage. Clearly there are also disadvantages, and most people think the latter dwarf the former. I just want an honest and nuanced discussion.

Re: Blockchain Is Dangerous Nonsense

#240

Post by cedilla » Thu, Apr 28, 2022, 10:35 AM UTC

scotty79 wrote: post #223

okintheory wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems a bit off to assert that "people feel it is a price worth paying" when almost all purchases online are made with credit cards which have some protections against fraud, and almost none are made with blockchains in comparison. It seems like so far, most people don't think it's a price worth paying?

Maybe in US. In Europe people pay a lot with money transfer and payments are considered to be mostly irreversible. Banks don't take responsibility for your mistakes (like typos or getting scammed).

Prepayment fraud is somewhat prevelant, so most transactions are post paid or direct debit. Neither form has that problem.

Even when fraud occurs, the recipient is a known actual person. Know your costumer rules successfully prevent these kinds of scams to a sufficient degree.

Banks will also monitor transactions and will delay execution when there are signs of fraud. That's why so many scams rely on other methods of payment, especially gift cards, western union and... Crypto coins.