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

451–460 of 724 posts

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#451

Post by pclmulqdq »

pjkundert wrote: post #402
NotYourLawyer wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What’s the use case for this? I’m not seeing it.

You see no benefit in Apps that cannot be "disappeared" by anyone (even the person who deployed it), and which scales without bound and can be composed (re-skinned or extended) without restriction? Or, forked and restricted to your own cryptographically identified and secured set of users?

What is the value proposition of "can't be disappeared by anyone" exactly? Reversibility and deletability are actually features of most systems.

Scales without bound is cool, but generally lacks use and is expensive. I would rather scale to my actual usage bounds rather than paying for infinite scalability.

Composed without restriction is cool, but I got that with the MIT and BSD licenses. Forked and restricted has already been possible using traditional open-source computer infrastructure.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#452

Post by arethuza »

Karunamon wrote: post #369
arethuza wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't seem to stop organisations like the FBI from "seizing" Bitcoins? e.g. https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/07/feds-seize-3point36-billion-...

Yep, this is called poor opsec. Had this person had someone else with a copy of that wallet's keys, they could have been moved before this happened.

If you have to rely on someone else with a copy of your keys then isn't that poor opsec?

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#453

Post by miracle2k »

onetrickwolf wrote: post #344
constantcrying wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A blockchain requires significant, persistent and consistent community effort. If you can not have one guy taking up the mantle and doing the hosting, how can you get hundreds to do the same? >A reason I have been interested in blockchain is that it seems like a good way to make a decentralized application that could exist beyond the life of the company or person that creates it. Community run projects have existed f…

> If you can not have one guy taking up the mantle and doing the hosting, how can you get hundreds to do the same? Well I mean if you were to use a public blockchain like Ethereum it's likely the Ethereum community wouldn't be going away. I am not thinking about rolling out our own chain. > Community run projects have existed for decades on the internet. They never needed a blockchain to persist Unfortunately my expe…

This is really interesting, and I'd love to learn more about it. One thing to look into is rollups - they will soon enable custom application with cheap transaction fees, but with the full security of Ethereum. See e.g.: https://docs.celestia.org/category/recipe-book/

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#454

Post by kranke155 »

anonymousDan wrote: post #315
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…

Good comment. While a lot of the complaints about blockchain are valid issues, the argument that it is useless and could be replaced with a database always makes me roll my eyes given the fundamental benefit is the open nature of the platform. Nonetheless, I think the key issue is scalability/performance.

"It could just be a database" is my litmus test now for an engineer who thinks he's really smart but really isn't.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#455

Post by Karunamon »

arethuza wrote: post #452
Karunamon wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yep, this is called poor opsec. Had this person had someone else with a copy of that wallet's keys, they could have been moved before this happened.

If you have to rely on someone else with a copy of your keys then isn't that poor opsec?

If you are in a position where losing access to a significant amount of money due to the actions of the state are likely, would it not make sense to have a backup plan?

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#456

Post by markdestouches »

themihai wrote: post #339
super256 wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's similar to AWS where it got exponentially more valuable as each new service was added But... I have yet to see a service which really adds value . All I've seen so far are: A) collection games, which are not different from collecting Pokémon for real money. B) liquidity PvP, where users open leveraged bets to hunt other market participants' stops/liquidations, so the hunter can reduce their position for cheap,…

I think there would be value but we neeed a real currency(i.e usd) on the blockchain. It's obvious that all those pegged currencies are prone to "bank run" scenarios. Not to mention the fiat conversion ruines the whole experience. With a real currency we could have at least real open and standards based p2p payments which would be great! Just like with cash offline we would no longer need visa, paypal or banks to tra…

It's not the type of currency you have that prevents bank runs. There were plenty of bank runs with very real dollars in the beginning of the century. What stopped it was proper regulation. EDIT: I mean the beginning the 20th century, of course.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#457

Post by cmrdporcupine »

starkd wrote: post #423

Amid all this sudden blockchain skepticism, one question remains prominent in my mind: where were all these skeptics when blockchain enthusiasm was on the rise? Sure, hindsight is 20/20, but you have to wonder if this chorus of I-toldya-so's were genuinely right, or if they are merely rewriting history to boost their own credibility. Blockchain was always experimental. The chance of success on any given project was a…

As others have pointed out, there was always debate. But I think what's changed is that the down-shouters have backed off. When we'd say "there's nothing here, and what is here is likely semi-criminal" there was almost always a vigorous thread of people who would argue back.

Especially so because a large part of the HN community have this libertarian tinge which brought them philosophically close to web3/crypto generally.

Many of those people have gone quite quiet recently. And I don't want to turn this into a "told you so" moment; I think this is good. Let's try to let the hype cycle end without knives coming out.

The question is what the long-term shake-out from all of this will be for tech more broadly. Many legitimate technologies and projects have gotten themselves caught up in this hype cycle, and there could be fall-outs for people and projects that associated themselves this way -- what I'm calling "crypto-taint." I'm thinking everything from the Rust PL community (where the bulk of employers are web3 companies, it seems) through to a lot of recent novel database tech generally.

I recently quit a job in part for this reason. The product itself was not crypto, but was associating itself with the language and community around ETH. I personally don't want the taint on my resume, even if it's merely marketing.

Where VCs put their money can be fickle. And the consequences for business entities emphasizing in the wrong place can be brutal. This is the third "down cycle" I've been through in my 25ish year software career, and I have some sense of how it could shake out.

Right now, people need to focus on fundamentals.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#458

Post by pjkundert »

NotYourLawyer wrote: post #380
pjkundert wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're dead on. It's staggering in its power -- permissionless composability, even if most of the data is not on-chain, and the programs are very limited in size/complexity due to the expense of running them. Now, imagine a system where all of the data is also on-chain, and the programs you can compose are full-complexity applications... All while maintaining every independent program's data invariant in a completely…

What’s the use case for this? I’m not seeing it.

OK, I’ve always considered these types of questions as disingenuous. But, enough people seem to disagree.

So, at risk of stating the obvious:

- Avoid risk of accidental/malicious deplatforming

- Personal control of all data, avoiding incompetence/malfeasance presenting faulty data

- Deploying enhanced presentation of existing functionality and data cannot be restricted

- Reuse of existing functionality in private environments can’t be prevented

- Guarantee that results based on trees of publicly committed data are themselves valid, without personally traversing the tree and recomputing results

- …

As I write this, I’m struggling to comprehend how these benefits aren’t obvious.

Maybe it’s because I’ve been searching for solutions to these problems since the early 90’s for distributed industrial control and monitoring. But seriously, I’m certain lots of developers run into these constraints and are seeking solutions.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#459

Post by kranke155 »

TimJRobinson wrote: post #268
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…

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…

Thank you. I feel like the tide is finally turning on this. The Ethereum VM (and its derivatives) is one of the biggest innovations in recent history.

I've been yelling at the top of my lungs why NFTs have revolutionized digital art and happy to see the top comment nails it - a zero trust verification environment makes it possible to sell it on an open global market. This just wasn't there before.

Blockchains are useless takes are already out of date.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#460

Post by adammarples »

kranke155 wrote: post #459
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…

Thank you. I feel like the tide is finally turning on this. The Ethereum VM (and its derivatives) is one of the biggest innovations in recent history. I've been yelling at the top of my lungs why NFTs have revolutionized digital art and happy to see the top comment nails it - a zero trust verification environment makes it possible to sell it on an open global market. This just wasn't there before. Blockchains are use…

Have nfts revolutionised digital art? I haven't seen it. Stable diffusion is potentially revolutionary, but nfts seem like last years fad.
Post reply on HN