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

501–510 of 724 posts

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#501

Post by niklasd »

pjkundert wrote: post #390
rapind wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It could be world-changing (at least for programmers). If you don’t mind, could you give an example for a programmer who isn’t building finance or crypto related applications? I think that would help me understand what we’re talking about.

https://twitter.com/pjkundert/status/1590009435619217413 The clutter.social App is a decentralized Twitter-like app implemented on Holochain. This one is hosted on https://holo.host (only in public Beta, so it doesn't scale automatically), but illustrates a full-complexity app that is deployed. You can compose this (eg. re-skin it, or build it into another app as a commenting back-end), without having to copy the imp…

It is somehow telling that you link to a Twitter post instead to a post on clutter.social.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#502

Post by smoldesu »

_8j50 wrote: post #481
smoldesu wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but you can come to a consensus on agreeing who made what changes and when between participants How is this different from Git's model of development?

Git is too slow for the use case I mentioned you resolve conflicts when you merge to your repo but you don't establish a consensus allowing everyone to accept your conflict resolution without centralizing.

Establishing consensus is more difficult than a single person deciding what to merge, if you need a trustless system then you can add consensus on top of Git.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#503

Post by matai_kolila »

So is the fundamental problem with blockchain, as described here anyway, that you can basically do all of the cool parts of blockchain that people get excited about, but using a central service instead?

I feel like I don't really understand that, because wouldn't that mean you'd have to re-solve a lot of problems on your own, with your own team? Wouldn't it be easier to figure out how to plug blockchain into this central service instead?

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#504

Post by elysian-breeze »

pjkundert wrote: post #498
elysian-breeze wrote: post #489

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Defi doesn't solve this at all. It is currently illegal for me and a lot of the world to buy software from Iran and Russia. Using blockchain to circumvent the law is the only use case people can scrape together. It doesn't matter if blockchain allows you to break the law. You are still breaking the law and punishments exists outside of the chain. Blockchain enthusiasts get confused between "a solution" and a "better…

Unfortunately, while many people believe this to be true -- there is nothing legally or morally wrong with you purchasing software from a small Russian or Iranian software developer. How do we know this, you ask? In fact, the entire Open Source (and most Closed Source) stacks depend on this fact, including the stacks underlying the entire US Government's (and its Military's) operations. Which functions on large amoun…

> morally, logically, legally and practically ridiculous.

Well i mean thats your opinion not the facts. There is a whole web of regulations when dealing with those countries and if they are allowed to buy from you.

There are even more laws around money movement and debt and financing.

Just declaring "it shouldnt be that way. it is unfair" doesn't change the laws.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#505

Post by _9omd »

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…

> the killer feature is actually permissionless composability

This right here is it! Everyone is always focused on the main feature being decentralization, but decentralization isn't a feature, it's an implementation detail. Decentralization is certainly a requirement for these goals, but permissionlessness is the goal. I'll note that permisionless for users, in the ability to create accounts and send transactions is every bit as import as permisionless building.

This is why I think the term DeFi misses the mark a bit, because it's a nod to the implementation (decentralized) rather than the features (open and permissionless). But at the end of the day I think it's catchier than something like OpenFi, and the terminology is set at this point.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#506

Post by matai_kolila »

pavlov wrote: post #308

The events described here took place in 2016, over six years ago. That's a long time in technology! Since then additional billions of investment dollars have flowed into the space (a "VC crypto spasm" as the author calls it). Yet zero meaningful products have emerged. But we've witnessed many giant scams and endless crypto startups that happily spun their wheels producing nothing, just minting tokens so that insiders…

I was able to circumvent my state's betting laws using Litecoin, so that feels meaningful, heh...

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#507

Post by _8j50 »

smoldesu wrote: post #502
_8j50 wrote: post #481

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Git is too slow for the use case I mentioned you resolve conflicts when you merge to your repo but you don't establish a consensus allowing everyone to accept your conflict resolution without centralizing.

Establishing consensus is more difficult than a single person deciding what to merge, if you need a trustless system then you can add consensus on top of Git.

Yeah and speed up git to commit/push/merge very fast. Or use a blockchain. I feel like there is stigma against the term, shall we call it distributed leger instead?

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#508

Post by _9omd »

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.

I think the confusion is the parent is talking about an implementation detail (blockchain), rather than the main problem cryptocurrency actually solves. Cryptocurrency solves for internet based financial sovereignty. Whether or not you think that's important to the world is a different discussion.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#509

Post by splix »

this_user wrote: post #471
hailwren wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, so it turns out that there are a fair amount of operations you can perform on financial objects to change their properties. You can buy, sell, combine, or split their risk profiles in different manners to get properties that are useful in different scenarios. Mortgage tranches played a big role in 2008, Black-Scholes helps us describe the behavior of options contracts, and maybe the most accessible for someone…

> The EVM specifically gives you a Turing complete financial system and, hence, probably a complete expression of operations on financial structures. Which is nice, but doesn't solve any problems that actually exist. That is the running theme with all of these crypto/blockchain/"defi" projects, because they are created by tech people who don't understand the domain. They just start building all of these things that s…

Can you clarify what is "solving a problem that actually exist" means?

I just looked around and I'm not sure I have anything that solves an actual problem. Like the HN right now, it doesn't solve anything, right. In the morning I bought stuff on Amazon, but it also doesn't solve any real problem. Not sure AWS is solving anything since we can rent servers directly. I used Zoom for a call, but it solves nothing, I guess. Also used Github, but it's just a useless service because we can use plain Git. I can't really find a tech product I use that clearly "solves a problem". The only problem solver I can recall is my coffee maker, but it's an analog device.

So I'm wondering, what it's the criteria to decided if something solves an actual problem or not?

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#510

Post by pjkundert »

duped wrote: post #495
pjkundert wrote: post #484

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "permissionless composability" in DeFi mean, if not this? Sure, its very expensive presently under the Ethereum version of "DeFi". Just like the original motorcar was expensive and fragile, and would break your arm occasionally while you crank-started it. Now, if the cost basis of each "DeFi" transaction is reduced by 5 orders of magnitude (see: Ethereum vs. Holochain) -- what are the potential outcomes of…

I have no idea what "permissionless composability" means. "Permissionless" isn't even a word (without permission or permission-less to be pedantic), and I can think of several overlapping contexts that those words could be meaningful in finance and/or software. The problem is the language you're using sounds like bullshit.

Ah, sorry! Mea culpa. Permissioned vs. permissionless systems has been used for so long in my circles that I thought it was a thing...

Even "DeFi" systems may not be permissionless, though. It's just that the permissions are visible constraints (ie. in the code) -- not just randos deciding to deplatform you because, you know, "reasons".

This is an emerging risk to eg. Ethereum. Now, most "Staking" validators are "OFAC compliant". Does this mean that eventually the Ethereum blockchain will orphan any wallet that contains any Eth that went through the Tornado Cash mixer?

What if you decided to compose the Tornado Cash mixer into your payment app, to maintain some anonymity in the face of a repressive regime say throwing gay people off roof tops? Would you consider a permissionless system bad, in that case? Because, OFAC decrees that you are currently a criminal (and guilty without charge or trial) if you do so. What if they decide, next week, that whatever you do presently use is now verboten?

So, these concepts aren't "bullshit"; they are a present, serious concern to free peoples around the globe.

Post reply on HN