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

Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

joecoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 103 posts

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#61

Post by vertex-four »

roasbeef wrote: post #49
na85 wrote: post #2

The common adage seems to be "storage is cheap", meaning "multi-TB blockchains won't be a problem because you can buy that much storage for a few hundred dollars". But I think the stupidly-large size of the blockchain is a major hurdle, given the concurrent trend of miniaturization. Embedded devices like one might find in the much-vaunted "internet of things" (eyeball roll) can't really afford to be toting six SSDs j…

Some embedded "internet of things" like device wouldn't be a full-node. Rather it would be a lite-node relying on the SPV[1] model of security. Storing some type of "working set" is totally feasible. Technically you don't even need to keep around all blocks, simply the resultant state that you arrive at after processing all blocks in order. This is called the Unspent Transaction Output set or UTXO set. It's also poss…

> Some embedded "internet of things" like device wouldn't be a full-node. Rather it would be a lite-node relying on the SPV[1] model of security.

Well, it's a lot more likely in my eyes that it'd be a thin client operating against a server owned by its owner. Just as safe, and doesn't involve trying to figure out how to allocate enough money on a micro scale to all your individual devices so they don't run out.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#62

Post by TeMPOraL »

sliverstorm wrote: post #35
na85 wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That seems self defeating. None of the advantages of a decentralized system are realized by centralizing the blockchain

That's perhaps my favorite part of Bitcoin. For good or bad, it was started by people rallying against the big centralized banks, and now at every turn we are hitting reasons why centralization makes a lot of sense. I half suspect that eventually it will come to resemble the current centralized systems, whether people want it or not. For example, the number of complete blockchains is dwindling as more people individu…

Chesterton's fence comes to mind.

Also, as Yvain pointed out in his excellent article[0], we might be fucking ourselves over big time with this drive towards decentralization and trustless systems. As we fight against corruption and abuse, we're building systems that don't allow us to coordinate even in principle. Today it's tax avoidance and buying pot on-line, tomorrow it will be untraceable trade of fissionable material and weaponized biotech.

Building trustless systems seems like a cool hack, but I think we'd be better off working on a way to improve coordination.

[0] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#63

Post by vertex-four »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #59
baddox wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The trouble I have is with your claim that cryptocurrency produces "nothing of absolute value at all." I don't know your definition of "value," but it's clearly not one I share.

I prefer to use the word "upkeep". Money is not something that has intrinsic value in itself. It's what we need because as a species we're too dumb to handle planetary-scale resource allocation. It's a waste we need to get what we want. But since it's a waste, it would be good to reduce it as much as possible.

On the other hand... the existing financial industry - even just the bits around creating and storing currency, and handling transactions - is rather a massive waste too. If it's possible to replace that with something that (a) gives more power to the people and (b) requires fewer people to run, that's probably a good thing - no comment on whether Bitcoin is that something.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#64

Post by sharpneli »

netrunner wrote: post #53
TylerE wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cryptocurrency is astoundingly bad at converting non-renewable natural resources into nothing of absolute value at all. Even (real) strip mining at least produces industrially useful ore. Blockchain technology as implemented in bitcoin is incredibly wasteful. The power used alone is in the tera-watt hours per year. All of those massive farms of custom miners...all to process an astounding ~90k transactions a day. The…

https://www.academia.edu/7666373/An_Order-of-Magnitude_Estim... claims that the environmental cost of paper currency & minting alone is 10x greater than that of bitcoin mining and concludes that given the trend of Moore's law, bitcoin's relative environmental impact will continue to stay negligible.

The reason for the 10x difference is that paper currency is used at least thousands of times more than bitcoin. Thus it's several orders of magnitude more efficient. Heck quite likely it's something like million times more efficient.

Moore's law doesn't help bitcoin. Because if we produce a miner that has 10x the power efficiency of a current mining hardware it just results into everyone using that miner. Total hashrate would be 10x but the electricity consumption would remain the same. The difficulty adjustment in bitcoin guarantees that regardless of the HW the profit from mining goes close to the electricity cost of it. Thus we can simply ignore Moore's law and focus on the fundamental point of bitcoin mining: Producing waste heat.

Having to continuously produce waste heat to secure the network is a fundamental flaw in bitcoin. An attack against the network (51% attack, using waste heat) must be sufficiently expensive compared to the gains of such an attack. The benefits of an attack scale with the amount of value transferred in bitcoin network. Thus the amount of waste heat constantly produced by honest people also must scale in order to keep it secure.

All of this because one person got the bright idea to solve Byzantine generals problem via unforgeable votes. What kind of vote is that? Waste heat. The guy just figured out how to verify that some other person has produced waste heat. And the whole network rests on the assumption that honest people buy more votes than the dishonest ones.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#65

Post by crazychrome »

drcode wrote: post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

Value and price are different things in lots of economic theories, e.g. Maxisim

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#66

Post by TeMPOraL »

vertex-four wrote: post #63
TeMPOraL wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I prefer to use the word "upkeep". Money is not something that has intrinsic value in itself. It's what we need because as a species we're too dumb to handle planetary-scale resource allocation. It's a waste we need to get what we want. But since it's a waste, it would be good to reduce it as much as possible.

On the other hand... the existing financial industry - even just the bits around creating and storing currency, and handling transactions - is rather a massive waste too. If it's possible to replace that with something that (a) gives more power to the people and (b) requires fewer people to run, that's probably a good thing - no comment on whether Bitcoin is that something.

I totally agree. Existing financial industry is a huge waste too (sadly, not many seem to see it that way). But Bitcoin, from what I read about it, seems to have an exponential hunger for power which doesn't lead me to believe that if it replaces current system, we'll be better off.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#67

Post by speleding »

This argument hinges on the assumption that miners need the incentive of new coins mined from the blockchain for them to continue mining. However, there are several other incentives that people can have. There are several actors inside and outside the US who like to have a currency without government control for various ideological reasons and do not need an economic incentive to continue validating the blockchain.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#68

Post by jasonisalive »

gutnor wrote: post #56
Terr_ wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way you're defining "value" makes for a pretty meaningless "victory", unless you believe Dutch Tulips were a true benefit to mankind. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulip_mania

Hmm, that got me thinking, I think I get your point generally that bitcoin is more an investment than a value storage and that you would be a fool ( at this stage anyway ) to talk about it as if it was. However, in general what currency has a value proportional to its benefit to mankind ? Any fiat currency are going to be out for the same reason than bitcoin is out, any traditional currency based on gold/silver/shell…

Money is always overvalued, because money is the technology we use to delay the completion of an economic trade. Money is where we "store" our pending transfers of value. Money is the bubble that does not burst.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#69

Post by nivertech »

While in theory Bitcoin can be adapted to "2.0 features" and beyond, in practice it's impossible.

Bitcoin code, protocol and marshaling formats are a mess. Bitcoin blockchain and transaction data structures make too many hardcoded assumptions about underlying application - payments with a single token.

Bitcoin scripting language was designed for transaction validation only, which makes implementing a smart contracts with it a hack and requires external Oracles.

TL;DR: Bitcoin is a good PoC which gained a network effect.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#70

Post by jarek »

vidarh wrote: post #60
sliverstorm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's perhaps my favorite part of Bitcoin. For good or bad, it was started by people rallying against the big centralized banks, and now at every turn we are hitting reasons why centralization makes a lot of sense. I half suspect that eventually it will come to resemble the current centralized systems, whether people want it or not. For example, the number of complete blockchains is dwindling as more people individu…

I find this line of thinking unconvincing. There is a vast difference between voluntary centralisation from which you can withdraw at any time, and forced centralisation from which there is no practical way to withdraw without huge sacrifices. Many socialist and anarchist ideologists are/were perfectly fine with centralisation of production, as long as decision making is decentralised, and participation is a result o…

> The capability of decentralisation in Bitcoin is important because it acts as a safeguard against forced centralisation and coercion. As long as the capability remains, whether or not people for practical/efficiency reasons opts for centralisation ought not cause most anarchists any major concern.

I'm probably misunderstanding something, but isn't it more that blockchain technology allows decentralisation, while dominance of any particular deployment supports centralisation? As I understand it, once Bitcoin is centralised, the 51% can control it as they wish, and the only alternative is to set up a wholly separate Bitcoin2 chain, or another altcoin.

(Again resulting in cryptocurrency being a bad store of value.)

Post reply on HN