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

AWS and Blockchain

tbray.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 724 posts

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#321

Post by iterateofen »

dsco wrote: post #277
TimJRobinson wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this, but working with DeFi on Ethereum for a while I've realized the killer feature is actually permissionless composability. Which is why enterprise block chains make little sense. Having one neutral platform, controlled by no one, with standardized API's and immutable open programs that anyone can permissionlessly build on - is amazing. We've never had this before, and it's incredible how fast the…

See this is where HN has fallen off a cliff, the top commented Runeks supplies a highly theoretical and nonchalant answer to what blockchains _can_ be. That’s been the majority of HNs take on the technology. But the Internet was made for text communication and here we are decades later with social media and streaming video. TimJRobinson at least states something which is rare on HN, a take on blockchain technology wi…

the examples he gave of 20 companies building on defi on his platform are all varying examples of a liquidity pools that if you go to their websites need yet another layer of companies to use their platforms to build the exciting products on.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#322

Post by loudmax »

jacknews wrote: post #141

I think the cost of trust is underestimated. All those shiny skyscrapers that the banks build? It's for trust, along with a good deal of banking licensing requirements and regulation. The example with the farmers' fields is quite valid. We forget in our relatively well-governed western nations that some governments really can't be trusted to simply keep records straight and not 'lose' vital documents, in cases where…

Rather than saying trust is expensive, I would express it as trust is precious.

By analogy, sunlight and air are cheap, not expensive, even though we can't live without them. If either of these were in short supply they would become extremely expensive. But since they're abundant we don't normally dwell on their value.

In a civilized society with a stable government, we take trust for granted. That's how society is able to build skyscrapers and shipping terminals and air travel. If society collectively loses trust in itself, we will lose these nice things. Trust is a feature of living in a liberal democracy. Autocracies may manage it too, but their historical record is questionable.

So trust is precious, but I wouldn't express it as trust is expensive because it creates far more value than it costs.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#323

Post by acdha »

tiffanyh wrote: post #310

Off topic: isn’t Amazon know for forcing people to be better writers due to how they conduct meetings with written memos. I bring this up because that post could have been 1/2 the length, if not shorter, without losing any content or messaging.

Different styles for different audiences. Busy executives want concise pitches because they receive a ton of them, people reading a long-running blog are looking more for the color and background of a personal blog.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#324

Post by intrasight »

dale_glass wrote: post #211
jacknews wrote: post #141

I think the cost of trust is underestimated. All those shiny skyscrapers that the banks build? It's for trust, along with a good deal of banking licensing requirements and regulation. The example with the farmers' fields is quite valid. We forget in our relatively well-governed western nations that some governments really can't be trusted to simply keep records straight and not 'lose' vital documents, in cases where…

Trust is expensive, lack of trust is even more so. Say, how would you build a skyscraper without trust? Are you going to set up an on-premises laboratory to test the quality of the concrete and steel? Are you going to personally verify the entire building's plans? Check whether the geological study was accurate? Follow every worker around to make sure they don't cut corners anywhere? The less you can trust that the m…

>Trust is expensive

Trust is free. Trust plus verification plus enforcement is expensive. If all we needed was trust, we could save ourselves trillions per year. When our machine overlords arrive, we'll be able to get buy on trust alone ;)

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#325

Post by ninepoints »

runeks wrote: post #167

Blockchain was invented to solve one particular problem: distributed consensus on a sequence of transactions, where the choice of which transaction to include from a set of conflicting transactions is irrelevant. The latter property here is key to understanding where blockchain is useful. It was created to solve the "double spend problem", ie. two transitions that spend the same coin but send it to different recipien…

This is such a narrow view on the problem because you also have to restrict the "make sense" part to the set of problems where it's ok to have the entire ledger in public view, not to mention that there are other mechanisms to accomplish the double spend issue

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#326

Post by bnralt »

dsco wrote: post #277
TimJRobinson wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to think this, but working with DeFi on Ethereum for a while I've realized the killer feature is actually permissionless composability. Which is why enterprise block chains make little sense. Having one neutral platform, controlled by no one, with standardized API's and immutable open programs that anyone can permissionlessly build on - is amazing. We've never had this before, and it's incredible how fast the…

See this is where HN has fallen off a cliff, the top commented Runeks supplies a highly theoretical and nonchalant answer to what blockchains _can_ be. That’s been the majority of HNs take on the technology. But the Internet was made for text communication and here we are decades later with social media and streaming video. TimJRobinson at least states something which is rare on HN, a take on blockchain technology wi…

Are the comments different, though? "Permissionless composability" - basically blockchain jargon for financial transactions that have no oversight - are made possible by the things runeks mentions. It's like someone saying "this solves the double spending problem," and someone else going "no, this allows me to buy contraband."

It's not exactly a surprise that crypto allows transactions without oversight. The issue is whether or not that's something actually useful, and for the vast majority of people it clearly isn't.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#327

Post by politician »

atypeoferror wrote: post #312
runeks wrote: post #167

Blockchain was invented to solve one particular problem: distributed consensus on a sequence of transactions, where the choice of which transaction to include from a set of conflicting transactions is irrelevant. The latter property here is key to understanding where blockchain is useful. It was created to solve the "double spend problem", ie. two transitions that spend the same coin but send it to different recipien…

Maybe I am a confused luddite, but it seems telling that this argument immediately launches into the solution space of a problem that is itself created by the presence of a blockchain. Double-spend has been solved by the financial sector quite some time ago. The distributed system part - I guess this is the problem that I think the article is claiming is yet to be found.

> Double-spend has been solved by the financial sector.

Traditional finance offers “at-most-one spend”while blockchain protocols offer “one spend up to 1/3 malicious nodes”.

The limit on the former is government, and Byzantine Fault Tolerance sets the limit on the latter.

Government can unilaterally seize “your” funds in traditional banking, while a substantial computational attack is required to cause a loss of confidence event (double spend) on a particular blockchain.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#328

Post by iterateofen »

api wrote: post #313
runeks wrote: post #167

Blockchain was invented to solve one particular problem: distributed consensus on a sequence of transactions, where the choice of which transaction to include from a set of conflicting transactions is irrelevant. The latter property here is key to understanding where blockchain is useful. It was created to solve the "double spend problem", ie. two transitions that spend the same coin but send it to different recipien…

There is one other case where a structure like a block chain can make sense. It’s an easy way to build an unalterable log. If you give me hash 200000 in the chain I know that log entries 0-200000 are all unaltered. This is perhaps the simplest easiest use case for a hash based linked list. Of course this is not the complete picture of what cryptocurrencies are; the hash list is just part of the system.

That tech exists without blockchain in a distributed way. Look at Git or GitHub.

Saying that is a unique feature or reason to use blockchain is similar to saying blockchain can add two numbers together so we should use it to build a calculator.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#329

Post by kayamon »

CPLX wrote: post #307
danbruc wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that its not the problem that bitcoin solves. You can do distributed consensus just fine without a block chain - if you have to make a choice between two options, everyone broadcasts a vote for one of the options and the option with the most votes is the accepted option. The problem that bitcoin solves is that you can not prevent me from casting a million votes because the system is anonymous - or pseudonymous if…

Compared to paper ballots it makes casting a ballot cheaper, more opaque, and less accountable.

But immune to fraud. Conservation of energy proves the vote happened without manipulation.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#330

Post by CPLX »

kayamon wrote: post #329
CPLX wrote: post #307

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compared to paper ballots it makes casting a ballot cheaper, more opaque, and less accountable.

But immune to fraud. Conservation of energy proves the vote happened without manipulation.

That’s a ludicrous argument I am not even sure where to start.

What exactly is the mechanism that proves that each vote registered by the system is in fact an accurate recording of the registered voting preference of an eligible voter?

Post reply on HN