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

721–724 of 724 posts

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#721

Post by codexon »

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…

I've been here all the time, but it is hard to keep talking when you are shouted down by all the people who bought into crypto late and are trying to pump it higher.

The last few comments I made on it.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29830090

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21541591

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21542591

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#722

Post by triplesec »

NovemberWhiskey wrote: post #696
halpmeh wrote: post #692

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok fair. But you can formally verify your smart contracts or you can test them, so this notion of "correctness" seems orthogonal to the discussion. Even if you formally verify a normal application, you can't trust your verification once you give it to me to execute.

The name of the thing I think you're looking for is verifiable computing . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verifiable_computing

I think there's one other aspect here that needs to be considered, which is what happens when undocumented features appear, as with the Polkadot fiasco, among others, where bugs in the shared walletsplus some thirs party actions used by many led to $hundreds of millions being completely inaccessible to all (ineptness, or malice, it is not clear).

The contracts were verifiable and correct enough, it seems, but some of the infrastructure turned out to be faulty, leading to a platform that was not trustworthy.

Re: AWS and Blockchain

#723

Post by MrMan »

x86x87 wrote: post #388
acdha wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that’s the anonymity part. You only need that if the parties don’t have some kind of relationship and reputations to maintain. This distinction matters because almost no real world situation is like that: people need to know that what they’re buying is what they were promised, sellers want to avoid doing business with anyone who fraudulently claims damages, etc. If you need to add reputations and/or trusted thir…

Is it anonymity? Afaik, everything is available on the blockchain (except for maybe some cryptos like Monero).

anonymous doesn't mean private it just means no names.
Post reply on HN