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

It’s not still the early days of blockchain

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#501

Post by drKarl »

3825 wrote: post #304
Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also enables people to finance themselves despite tyrannical restrictions imposed by bad governments. Using bitcoin I can send money to someone in Chi no a who's social rating was degraded by the CCP and who is forbidden from using banks. This alone trumps any arguments against bitcoin. Crime will exist forever and criminals will find ways to finance themselves anyway, so the use of cryptocurrencies for their oper…

> Using bitcoin I can send money to someone in Chi no a who's social rating was degraded by the CCP and who is forbidden from using banks How will they convert it into something they can use to pay rent and buy groceries? > Crime will exist forever and criminals will find ways to finance themselves anyway, so the use of cryptocurrencies for their operations is not really a factor. Does this make it easier for the wea…

Nano (https://nano.org/) for example has zero fees and transactions are instant

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#502

Post by NiloCK »

grailed wrote: post #478
chucke wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the promise of having an insurance contract publicly verified by a decentralised system is to reduce the inherent costs of the current regulated system. In my country,and I assume in most it's the same, in order for you to sign a buy contract for a house, there has to be a notary involved. The whole process costs a significant percentage of your already heavy purchase. A blockchain won't solve all the probl…

FWIW, I think a notary signature in the US costs like $4. If verification is the only problem that blockchain solves, it's not a very cost-effective solution.

I recently paid ~$150 for an hour's worth of notary services in Canada while preparing a property sale.

I guess I should have driven to Maine.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#503

Post by kingofspain »

jakupovic wrote: post #466
_fizz_buzz_ wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd say with email the application was always crystal clear: It's like sending a letter, but electronically and therefore instantly. This must have been obvious to everyone in that space even 40 years ago. Maybe it wasn't obvious how big email would be one day, but there were definitely no doubts about what it would be used for. As someone who is trying to understand the applications of "crypto", it is very frustrati…

Email is also used for authentication, all those 6 digit codes that come in for 2fa are doing so. Definitely not something that was imagined 40 years go.

Not too dissimilar to getting your bank card and PIN in separate letters. Just much, much quicker.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#504

Post by anonymoushn »

grailed wrote: post #478
chucke wrote: post #472

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the promise of having an insurance contract publicly verified by a decentralised system is to reduce the inherent costs of the current regulated system. In my country,and I assume in most it's the same, in order for you to sign a buy contract for a house, there has to be a notary involved. The whole process costs a significant percentage of your already heavy purchase. A blockchain won't solve all the probl…

FWIW, I think a notary signature in the US costs like $4. If verification is the only problem that blockchain solves, it's not a very cost-effective solution.

For me, a US notary signature currently involved a 2 month wait time at the US embassy. At the notary I used back in San Francisco, it cost $30, not including the cost of going there.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#506

Post by chucke »

wayoutthere wrote: post #490
chucke wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the forest for the trees. Bitcoin is broken and will never be more than a speculative asset with no intrinsic value. Blockchains can solve problems. Decentralisation can quickly become federation. Example: a global id system where the "miners" are countries. It removes the need of physical passports and their associated costs and delays.

You’d have to get those countries to agree on a common set of governance rules, and inevitably some bloc of countries would eventually fork and go it on their own because they want a different set of rules (e.g. mandatory biometric data, inability to update passport data like gender, etc). I’m not sure it solves any problems that the diplomatic system doesn’t already solve. This also ignores that the costs and delays…

> you can’t have a corrupt official ask for a cash payment to “expedite” your passport / visa application if it’s fast to begin with

And yet this happens. Theoretically the blockchain reduces the entry barrier more, while not compromising on compliance and security guarantees.

You're spot on that countries would have to agree, and different blocks could form. It's no different than trade and visa agreements. The blockchain doesn't solve the problem IMO,it just reduces the cost. Trust in institutions will never be replaced by the blockchain.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#507

Post by Vespasian »

Andrew_nenakhov wrote: post #437
staticassertion wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It also enables people to finance themselves despite tyrannical restrictions imposed by bad governments. Using bitcoin I can send money to someone in Chi no a who's social rating was degraded by the CCP and who is forbidden from using banks. In no way does bitcoin being blockchain based enable you to do this better or more effectively. It's just because it's a less regulated currency.

Bitcoin being blockchain and a consensus algorithm to append it is what enables people to use it without asking for permission. Permissionlessness is the main killer feature, and I dare you to find another way to implement it using some other method.

Alright, how does a potential recipient use those funds?

Pay rent? No, because the government would notice the missing income on the landlords tax return.

Pay for food and other goods? No, because the government would not allow companies to take funds from permissionless blockchains.

Buy real estate or a car? No because those needs to be registered with the government as well and payments are regularly checked for fraud and money laundering.

A black market for all of the above? Sure but any government to weak too prevent a black market of this scale would also be unable to restrict transactions (no matter the method) in the first place.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#508

Post by lottin »

WesternWind wrote: post #493
janandonly wrote: post #484

I never understand critiques like these. > "somehow no one appears to have managed to find a positive use for blockchains that wouldn’t be better served by blockchainless technologies" There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022. Replacing central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing, is the whole re…

I mean a significant portion of the world's money is created by fractional reserve banking.

Not just a significant portion, the vast majority of money in circulation is money created by commercial banks, not central banks. For example, in 2007, Euros issued by the ECB accounted for less than 15% of the supply of Euros (M1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#/me...

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#509

Post by meheleventyone »

jakupovic wrote: post #470
meheleventyone wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was giving my own opinion so it by definition can’t be false. You also quote a single person and present that as general sentiment. Can you show definitively that was broadly shared? You’re also not really addressing the factual point made which was that Internet adoption had the pre-requisite of home computer adoption. Whereas there doesn’t seem to be such a stumbling block for blockchain tech.

>was giving my own opinion so it by definition can’t be false. This statement is false and therefore your opinion could be false. Example, in your opinion white bread is the best, I think wheat bread is the best. Are you right, just because you believe it and said so? Obviously we both cannot be right. But to us, you and I, the statements are true.

They’re both opinions so they are statements of what we think. We are the arbiters of that so get to say whether we think them or not. That you like wheat bread and I like brown bread are both true and not false.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#510

Post by JackFr »

chucke wrote: post #472
gambiting wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But....why. What problem does it solve. How is it better than existing insurance policies that are perfectly fine being bound to my name and address

I believe the promise of having an insurance contract publicly verified by a decentralised system is to reduce the inherent costs of the current regulated system. In my country,and I assume in most it's the same, in order for you to sign a buy contract for a house, there has to be a notary involved. The whole process costs a significant percentage of your already heavy purchase. A blockchain won't solve all the probl…

Mire important than a notary is title insurance. Title insurance is a form of insurance that protects lenders and homebuyers from financial loss from an improper title to a property, for instance someone selling you a property they don’t own.

This is the kind of thing at first glance people say is made for the blockchain, but in reality the incumbent solution is actually pretty reasonable and the actual gains from a new system are negligible.

Post reply on HN