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

Post by ddebernardy » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:14 PM UTC

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #224

ddebernardy wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Me too. In large part because paper ballots offer these guarantees. But there's a swath of elections and voting going on (in universities, within political parties or unions, etc., but also official elections in parts of the US or in Estonia) that that use e-voting to cut costs or improve participation. They currently lack these guarantees yet those elected end up in charge of millions in budget.

Picking on one point here: In your electoral system is there a way to verify your vote was counted. Like a stamped voting slip? I've thought that a good way in an electronic system would be to give you a vote code (maybe a single letter), and a verification code. You'd enter the verification code, the screen would show all candidates/voting options with a "vote code" and you'd verify by finding your vote code matched…

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:25 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #227

aboodman wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I completely follow you, but there's nothing preventing a party from making use of the legal system or contracts or whatever in addition to a blockchain. I still think that making some common classes of dispute impossible is highly valuable.

Which classes of dispute does blockchain make impossible? It can attest that a key signed a particular transaction, but that doesn't necessarily mean it was done by or intended by the owner. General purpose computer security just isn't quite good enough for that, that's why smartcards and secure enclaves exists.

Post by berbec » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

seattle_spring wrote: post #251

lawn wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why did we ever move away from sea shells then?

When I was young, taking the ferry would cost you a nickel, and in those days, nickels had pictures of bumblebees on 'em. "Gimme five bees for a quarter," you'd say.

Post by reidjs » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:34 PM UTC

jfk13 wrote: post #265

tchaffee wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin is a good backup currency for travel. I tend to use my regular bank card, but I've been in situations where none of my bank cards work at the local ATM. I know the article is about blockchain in general. But I think it's worth pointing out a legal and good use case that might not be obvious to people who don't travel.

And how often do you find, when your cards don't work, that the local coffee shop, hotel, or train station accepts bitcoin?

Post by kurtisc » Fri, Feb 22, 2019, 10:41 PM UTC

AlunAlun wrote: post #37

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…

You can repeat it all the times you want, but it it is still a shortsighted view. “A database and a contract”... but who owns the database? And who enforces the contract? And who owns the actual data? Blockchain provides satisfactory answers to all those problems. I agree 100% with the article in that blockchain is being ‘applied’ to a whole bunch of places that don’t need it. That doesn’t mean that it can’t work wel…