OK but there are actually great uses for blockchain that are completely disconnected from anything you typically see
For example, banks may begin using blockchain for maintaining their internal ledgers. It will help solve a ton of issues around reconciling the transactions from all over the globe
Blockchain has reasonable uses. Really good ones. Crypto and nft bros just completely ruined the image of it
EDIT: I love all the comments demonstrating how little people understand about blockchain. Bitcoin was not the first blockchain, nor is its design the only type of blockchain. Assuming that all blockchain looks like the crypto/nft paradigm is just showing your ignorance.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/j5nzx4/what-was-the-first-blockchain
Blockchain is only potentially useful if there’s no single entity that can be trusted. If banks can’t even trust themselves to manage their own internal ledgers, they have much bigger problems to deal with.
Trustless systems aren’t a bad thing that has to step in when the good thing fails. Trustless systems are inherently better because you don’t have to trust a bank (or anyone for that matter).
Additionally, ledgers can be gamed/corrupted/falsified. This is significantly more complex (bordering on impossible) on the blockchain.
There are often easier, more reliable, and far cheaper ways to achieve the same things without using a blockchain. Some of the principles are even used in normal web browsing to ensure secure untampered connections.
Blockchain just solves a subproblem that only arises when there’s no appointed central entity.
Blockchains aren’t hard, unreliable or expensive
Cryptocurrency Ledgers can be corrupted?
I was hedging against a particularly snarky commenter showing up. You can do a 51% attack and theoretically corrupt it. In practice, that’s much more difficult.
You dont need 51% attack to corrupt a ledger. Just enter incorrect info and the ledger is wrong. Not a damn thing a blockchain can do about that. Same issue is with any trustless system where you have to trust someone to input the correct info/do the agreed thing/ship the ordered physical item.
Just enter incorrect info and the ledger is wrong.
The concept behind cryptocurrency is that the ledger is the info, because you’re right, a half-assed blockchain ledger used for external (e.g. cash) transactions doesn’t really solve the root problem. Proof of work is fucking stupid though, and it has (rightfully) ruined the perception of blockchain technology among those who can see past their own crypto wallet.
That’s the thing, they shouldn’t trust a single source of assumed truth. If the single source is tampered with, there’s nothing to compare to.
Removing the need to trust a single entity is just a great security feature
If the bank can’t even trust themselves then there’s no point in having the bank at all.
You really don’t get it? Trust is a problem. Anyone, or anything, can and will fail or be compromised.
so I put my trust in software instead. And by extension its developers. You’re saying of all people, we should trust some programmers above all else. You know, the “move fast and break things” guys.
As a programmer myself, this thought is both terrifying and hilarious.
As a fellow programmer: what kind of doomer take is this? I don’t have any opinion on the efficacy of blockchain technology, but all of us put an immeasurable amount of trust in software every single day. And it’s not like current banking practices are different in this regard, either: blockchain tech requires faith in the software implementation, while contemporary banking requires faith in banks and the software they use (including a borderline unmaintainable COBOL stack, from what I’ve heard).
because problems in the bank’s software are the bank’s responsibility. If they lose my money, it’s their responsibility to get it back. Cryptocurrencies are the exact opposite, by design. If you’re fucked, you’ee fucked. unless of course half the participants decide to fork, half don’t and you end up with two “currencies” out of thin air.
You can implement public or semi public ledgers without Blockchain. That’s what banks are doing already by sending huge CSV files internally and externally. Blockchain is not a technology of zero trust. It’s close to the opposite. You trust a few peers and blindly trust everyone they trust. That way you trust a network that you know nothing about and if the network decides on a common truth that you are convinced is incorrect, there is nothing you can do about it. The consensus always wins and there is no single entity to complain to and get it fixed. This is great for making sure that many actors need to be bad actors in order to have the whole system fail. It’s bad if you don’t trust anyone and want to make sure that your standards are always observed. From a technology standpoint I love the concept of Blockchain. But use cases that are not forced are few and far apart. Too few for the amount of hype it receives.
How is the blockchain different from a read only ( write only once to be specific) DB that follows ACID?
Blockchains add cryptographic signing and limit actions based on those signatures.
Big words that mean nothing
To you maybe. Maybe other lemmings reading this understand them.
They mean nothing in the sense its nothing you cant do with DBs, so like I said, big words that mean nothing
Cryptography - means that only you can make changes. No database administrator. No hacker. No-one but you.
Limited actions - means the changes you make must follow rules that cannot be altered by anyone.
Both impossible to implement on a normal DB, which is why bitcoin was revolutionary.
-
thats not what cryptography means, and is a huge fucking downside especially for banking which us centrally controlled
-
It’s called triggers, user roles etc, once again you dont want this to be unalterabale for banking because what if regulations change…
Only thing bitcoin revolutionized was the speed with which scammers can dupe people out of their money.
-
It’s distributed so no single entity can take it down. Among many other possible benefits depending on architecture and infrastructure.
It’s far more complex than coins and NFTs. Blockchain is like a new internet. Coins and NFTs are like those shitty GIFs you used to see everywhere. Evocative of old internet, but not the internet itself.
Distributed databases have existed for decades. It’s how large healthcare systems maintain electronic health records for their patients across dozens of hospitals in real time.
How is that useful in a bank ledger?
Blockchain has been around as a technology for nearly two decades. If financial institutions thought it could help them you can bet they would be all-in on it by now. As it is, blockchain has no significant advantages over traditional financial ledger systems, so what incentive is there for them to use it.
It’s not something new or cutting edge any more, just waiting for a bright spark to discover the technology and put it to use.
If financial institutions thought it could help them you can bet they would be all-in on it by now.
Maybe do a simple Google search next time?
Rather than resorting to that age-old cry of the cult member “do your own research!” can I respectfully suggest that if you’re aiming to change somebody’s mind, the onus is on you to provide the evidence, not on them. By all means take hours out of your day to search google and compile a list of things that you think will convince me. Me, personally, I have better things to do with my life.
Well, why would banks replace the system which allows them to charge fees for every other interaction with their services? A blockain solution would allow multiple different banks (and, possibly, even regular people) to access the data with no middlemen, and, therefore, no fees. Or, well, no fees that directly end up in the bank’s pockets as profit, that is.
Getting rid of that is bad for business. So, unless something magical happens and the EU, for example, pass a law requiring the banks to switch to a more de-centralized, more fair system, it’s not going to happen.
That’s kind of my point. Blockchain evangelists have been banging the drum for many years saying “This is a perfect fit for the financial industry. Why won’t fintech wake up and recognise that?”
When in fact fintech took a long, hard look at blockchain a long time ago and decided “nope, there’s nothing here that would tempt us” outside of a few very niche applications.
Yeah let’s use the computing power of an entire country to pay for a small coffee.
While that is an inherent component of how proof-of-work cryptos work, and utterly stupid, it’s not an inherent part of how to do blockchains.
You can have a blockchain without consuming stupid amounts of energy.
Yeah it’s called a database…
There aren’t a lot of distributed databases with no single owner and all writes are signed.
Why would you want the computational power of a bank system have anything to do with whether it’s ledger is correct?
Banks/hackers can manipulate data if they want to. Manipulating data on blockchains is way waaaaay harder.
Using a blockchain to maintain their internal ledgers means they have complete control over that blockchain, so they can manipulate it all they want. Blockchains aren’t magic.
Who are “they” in the above message?
If you trust all your employees then an internal blockchain is useless, but do banks really totally trust their employees?
A blockchain won’t solve incorrect transaction information any more than an audit log in this case. This is an entirely internal process controlled by the bank and access would be restricted, so they couldn’t just edit audit logs. How do you think a blockchain would be used to improve this?
The actions that an employee could perform would be limited by their private key’s abilities. Blockchain can be preventative. It’s not only for retrospective analysis.
The actions that an employee could perform in any database would be limited by their account permissions. Blockchain doesn’t change this. I pointed out a retrospective mechanism because a completely internal blockchain wouldn’t prevent tampering either.
blockchains do not do jack shit with reconciliating records.
Walmart seems to have had success here, and logistics is their whole thing.
https://hbr.org/2022/01/how-walmart-canada-uses-blockchain-to-solve-supply-chain-challenges
Please go and attempt understanding the thing you are talking about before talking about it.
i for one would have liked a media licensing system that operates agnostic of any centralized authority
for instance, irrefutable and independently verifiable proof that you own a valid software, music, or visual art license and are therefore immune to prosecution for piracy.
A registry of licenses like this could shield creators from copyright claims on social media applications such as youtube. Could also automate revenue sharing and royalties for artists whose works are used in derivative media so the people who actually perform the work get paid. Would be nice to cut the publisher middleman out. And there is absolutely no reason there has to be anything like a “proof of work” system burning down entire fucking rainforests’ worth of energy to verify every single gods damned transaction because this sort of system isn’t for trading shit, it’s strictly for proving a valid chain of custody between producers and consumers and you don’t need megawatt-hours to just fucking LOOK SOMETHING UP.
imagine if, for instance, fucking warner brothers couldn’t “takes backsies” content that they SOLD to end users through a distribution network; the license is yours, and anyone can look up the fact that the license was sold to the user id you happen to control.
imagine if, for instance, you buy a video game through a digital distributor like steam but then the store goes out of business and no longer exists to serve you a copy or recognize the sale, but on this massively distributed and decentralized database you can prove that you did indeed compensate the developers of that software and thereby legally acquire entitlement to access it in accordance with the end user license agreement.
imagine if ownership of stuff you bought fair and square can never be taken away from you
THAT’S what we could have had
instead of this fucking bullshit.
imagine if, for instance, you buy a video game through a digital distributor like steam but then the store goes out of business and no longer exists to serve you a copy or recognize the sale, but on this massively distributed and decentralized database you can prove that you did indeed compensate the developers of that software and thereby legally acquire entitlement to access it in accordance with the end user license agreement.
What you’re arguing for is forcing the distributor to distribute in perpetuity, which has nothing to do with how you show ownership of your license.
Right now, I can show steam I’ve purchased, say Delistopolis, and they will agree I am indeed perfectly allowed to have and play it. But they are not required to provide me with a copy.
A blockchain system will not solve this.
no. you’re putting words in my mouth. if the distributor wants to stop distributing they can.
they can take down their servers, they can even cease to be, but it would no longer affect the availability of product they sold.
Then I don’t think I understand you. Are you suggesting we put millions of full games on a bloxkchain?
Only the keys need to be stored cryptographically, really, because the game files themselves are nigh inevitably available on torrenting networks. it’s inevitable that people are going to rip backups of all game files for the delicious delights of datamining and as long as enough of them will seed them (which shouldn’t be a problem as long as there’s any INTEREST in a game existing…) that availability never arises as an issue. And if it’s not popular enough to put there, it’ll probably end up on The Internet Archive.
Would be nice if there were an infrastructural ‘backup of last resort’ such as the library of congress, which is something the LoC already does for other audiovisual media. It’d just be nice if that service were extended to software.
So more of a blockchain KMS then? I don’t see how you could construct such a thing.
The requirements of allowing a publisher control of their game for some time (for example, allowing them to retract some keys when violating the EULA, but not all keys when “unpublishing” a game), but also allowing people to resell keys, which are somehow publically accesible but only for the legit owner, and the owner has to allow third-party acces without publically sharing a private key.
This is the age-old identity problem with blockchain. It’s all well and good that Bob’s name is written on a smart contract, but that doesn’t remove the issue with how to identify Bob.
Well, if those licenses are entries on the blockchain, they could be transferred on the blockchain. You could sell your game used when you’re bored of playing it. You can’t play it after you sell it but someone else can. Publishers hate resale markets though, when people buy used games they don’t make any money. So they’ll probably never go for this.
yeah on top of that, if your computer breaks or something now you lost all of your keys.
say goodbye to whatever you own on the blockchain when the keys are gone. poof!
this is the biggest problem with any scheme tying private keys (digital) to anything in the real world.
As people said, you can backup your private keys to a flash drive. You can put them in a safe deposit box. You can give them to your lawyer or other fiduciary with a legal responsibility to act in your best interests (who also knows how to protect digital property if they keep digital copy). You could write it with lemon juice onto the back of the Declaration of Independence at the National Archives. You could have a laser thingie that displays it on a wall surgically implanted into your arm. Pretty much all the ways people protect gold or cash in the real world you can do with a piece of paper with your private key.
NFT’s don’t show you have proof of ownership of anything other than the NFT. Think of all the people who got their metamask account hacked and lost all their apes with zero recourse.
Why would anyone want anything required for daily life attached to something so insecure and irreversible as that?
It’s like if losing your wallet automatically burns down your house. Sounds amazing, let’s do it!
git is a blockchain, just without PoW
… or data validation.
Man, I remember how back in 2009 we were hyped about this possible chance for a fairer world that a independent currency might bring. Guess we were quite wrong. :)
The independent currency was still worth standard currency… So the ones already hoarding all of that existing make-believe-number money just bought up and schemed us out of new make-believe-number money.
How did we not see this coming? :(
Not gonna claim any foresight.
But now in 2024. It dose seem rather insane to me. That no one predicted the energy problems of proof of work.
We were well aware of the co2 cost of computing.
No one expected that dozens of crypto currencies would pop up. Most of us actually expected it to just fail and dissolve. But there was the naive, little glimpse of hope that this might destroy the petro dollar (which was much stronger in 2009 than today).
we need the blockchainsaw
as hostile as people are to block chain due to NFT’s and bad implementations, the technology itself has its use cases. It’s a great solution for information exchange that requires verification and Immutation. This makes them perfect for ledgers or transaction networks.
It’s just there is so much bad PR regarding it everyone just discredits it. Not all of the block chain technologies are massively energy intensive per transaction, it’s just many of the cryptocurrencies use the most intensive one because it’s also arguably the most secure
the technology itself has its use cases.
Cool.
Name one successful example.
I mean, it’s been, what, 15 years of hype? Surely there must be a successful deployment of a commercially viable and useful blockchain that isn’t just a speculative cryptocurrency or derivative thereof, right?
Right?
I can’t find the case study, but this blockchain project by IBM was implemented in Singapore and was shown to reduce customs processing times from several weeks to just several hours.
The general idea was that with a successful blockchain implementation, the Singapore government was able to expedite parts of their customs process which normally require intensive human labor, and the use of smart contracts removed the need for having documents sent and resent when all parties had access to the smart contract directly.
There are specific use cases where it can benefit existing processes, but people just think blockchain = crypto.
I can’t find the case study, but this blockchain project by IBM was implemented in Singapore and was shown to reduce customs processing times from several weeks to just several hours.
the real question is what part of this was specific to blockchain, something that would be difficult or impossible to do without it. if you want to put forward this argument you need to at least provide a simple, clear, coherent answer to that.
in this case, i could easily argue a sqlite db hosted on gitea would work better and theres no way to prove im wrong.
First thing I found when I searched for “Maersk IBM blockchain”:
A.P. Moller - Maersk and IBM to discontinue TradeLens, a blockchain-enabled global trade platform
Who are you? Go make bad arguments elsewhere.
In any case here is a bunch
I stand corrected. One project in Italy and two proofs of concept that never went anywhere.
Truly revolutionary.
Well I use Bitcoin everyday and I’m grateful for it.
Banks don’t support the transactions I need to make.
this gives off illegal vibes
https://csa-iot.org/certification/distributed-compliance-ledger/
Matter Distributed Client Ledger. In use by Apple, Amazon, Google, Samsung, and many more.
Contains all the attestation information for on boarding Matter devices. Where once it was Google Home vs Apple HomeKit vs Amazon Echo / Alexa, supporting devices can now work cross ecosystem.
Since many of these companies are competitors working together. A distributed ledger makes sense to keep everyone honest and provide a level of tech supported governance.
I mean… the original Bitcoin?
Blockchain never promised anything related to economic viability or stability. Only that it would ensure a P2P network would remain practically safe from malicious transactions by utilizing a system that rewards verification.
By that standard, every other crypto that people use happens to be a pretty successful blockchain use case.
If you want something stable and not a straight cryptocurrency then I’m pretty XRP qualifies because it also handles fiat and other commodities.
Otherwise, most DDBSs don’t use blockchain because they don’t need verification requirements relating to transactions and ownership. DHTs are way more common like IPFS.
Monero actually has very good uses. It does use POW but their algorithm is made to encourage using CPUs instead of GPUs and slower, power efficient devices, which makes it a lot less energy intensive than other POW cryptocurrencies.
It’s only use is illegal commerce. It’s the only one thar actually has a purpose, and it’s to help criminals.
Privacy is a crime? I pay for several online services with XMR (or BTC swapped from XMR): Jmp.chat (mobile service), EteSync (E2EE contact sync), Proton Mail, Mullvad VPN, Usenet (might have an argument there).
Why can’t I access Google’s individual transactions but they should have access to mine?
Why can’t I access Google’s individual transactions but they should have access to mine?
why are you giving google access to your transactions to begin with? all my credit card transactions are between me and visa and my credit union and the federal government, but not google.
I’m not, it was just an example data broker. You are 100% sure that data is not getting sold?
I picked Google because back in my days of ignorance, their rewards app would ask if I made X purchase at Y store down to the penny. I wasn’t using GPay/GWallet, just my a debit or credit card. The Y I get with location services. Them having the transaction amount leads me to assume credit card companies/payment processors/etc are sharing this data in near real time. Probably anonymously but with enough data points to trace it back to an individual with a degree of confidence.
So I use XMR when I can. Locations services are also off.
You are 100% sure that data is not getting sold?
lol no, im 100% sure its being sold in some way, no matter how many things I opt out of. while i do have a lot of privacy focused things in my life, from email to chat to phone, i just can’t find myself caring that much about someone tracking my gasoline consumption or knowing that I go to the same bar every week for game night.
the obvious downside to something like XMR is that its a ticking time bomb from a privacy perspective. at some point the security will fail as all security does, and then the data is totally public.
the technology itself has its use cases.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI I would love to hear the counterarguments. video is <15 mins, academic setting.
Just responding that I did see this, The video has peaked my curiosity and I plan on watching it later when I have more free time outside of midterm’s season
His arguments are:-
We don’t need blockchain to stop problems from happening because we have a [super efficient, cheap, accessible, well constructed] legal system to correct those problems when they occur.
We don’t need distributed ledgers to store the data because we can just trust Amazon Web services.
That’s a unique interpretation
You wanted counter-arguments.
Trusting the legal system (9m23s,11m34s) and Amazon (12m35s) are vastly inferior to what blockchain offers.
I did, and am still
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
https://www.piped.video/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Absolute immutability is kind of a terrible property for a financial system though, cos it completely ignores the fact that mistakes and fraud happen and you need a way to forcefully recover funds other than “lol sucks to be you I guess”.
The one actually genuinely useful application for this kind of technology that anyone has come up with is Certificate Transparency, but crypto people don’t get excited about it cos it’s not possible to make money from it.
You can revert transactions with immutable storage. For example git can do revert-commits.
Reverts work because users have equal write access to all the data. You can mess things up in the codebase, and even if you die of a heart attack 10m later, my revert is just as valid as your commit.
It’s not really the same when every user has “sovereignty” over their address in the ledger. A bad actor has to consent to pushing a revert transaction onto the chain, or they have to consent to using a blockchain system where 3rd-party reversion is possible (which exists on some systems, but also defeats the concept of true sovereignty over your address).
You can implement clawback while still having an immutable blockchain. The transaction will always stay on the blockchain, but the funds can be recovered
this is how it should be anyway, you do not want any ledger or database to be mutable because it allows for integrity violations and will cause you to lose the ability to trust it. Even non-blockchain styles follow that principle.
There is nothing Crypto can do better than regular database. Immutability is not a desirable property.
@itsmect mentioned this too but it is wild how this community just hates cryptpo. There’s a good chance the instance you’re on accepts it for donations. Why would they do that if it is so unusable and bad? Open source everything except the money. Makes no sense.
Lol after this comment Bitcoin surpassed silvers market cap making it the 8th most valuable asset in the world. So glad people who don’t understand it and hate it don’t get to ruin it for the rest of us.
Open source everything except the money.
this is a truly perplexing statement. what about a currency that is controlled predominantly by early adopters has anything to do with open source?
Bitcoin Core is MIT licensed.
There is value in having core functions of society like social medla and money decentralized and running on open source software even though it will not fix wealth inequality.
Like the rest of society, some people get ridiculous wealth by luck of being at the right place at the right time. That is no reason to not have open source money.
There are many issues with bitcoin but that one I do not buy.
Like the rest of society, some people get ridiculous wealth by luck of being at the right place at the right time. That is no reason to not have open source money.
thats not the point, there have been studies that show bitcoin is fairly vulnerable to 50% control due to early adopters and other wHaLeS controlling the currency. and the studies can show this because bitcoin isnt private.
Alright, do you mean concentration in hash rate (mining)?
don’t recall, it covered both bitcoin and etherium and investigated who owned what. ill see if i can’t find it. edit: this seems to be the academic version of it, but theres a prettier journalism version with more stories and pictures: https://arxiv.org/abs/2206.02871
in this case i seem to have misremembered owners vs miners, but I’ll keep poking around. this one is also older than i remember.
That is super interesting! But yeah, that was really early days. Hash rate centralisation could of course still be a problem today but it was most likely 100 times worse in 2011.
Bitcoin Core is MIT licensed.
the software is, but what relevance does that have to people using it as currency?
It is similar to open source social media. No single entity is in control. No single company or government that can use that power to control the users. For the end user the result is that bitcoin is more like paper cash than other digital money. You and only you are in control. It is extremely hard to stop you from sending or receiving money.
Just like with the fediverse, there is no Elon Musk or Mark Zuckerberg to kick you out. With bitcoin there will be no Putin or Trump to freeze your bank account.
The big difference between bitcoin and cash is: When my employer pays me in bitcoin, they can see which wallets I give it to. If all stores and online shops use bitcoin, they’ll publish their bitcoin adresses on their website etc. like they already do with bank account numbers. That means my employer could see where I’m shopping at.
yeah i dont think anyone seriously buys into bitcoin=private in 2024 thankfully. they are still deluded on monero, but its only a matter of time.
Bitcoins indeed have much worse privacy than cash.
As you outline, if people use the worst possible privacy choices the privacy is ridiculously bad. It does not have to be that bad.
The current best practice for on-chain transactions (as in not all the layer 2 stuff needed to scale) is to use a new address for every incoming transaction. That way a shop would not have one address but thousands, none of which your employer can easily know about.
This type of privacy is still not anywhere near cash. To get that type of privacy you would need to mix your coins with others. Essentially putting all the coins into a sack, shaking it, then handing out coins to everyone. It is not perfekt but we are getting to cash like levels of privacy. Cash is not perfekt either, bills have serial numbers, etc.
The elefant in the room is that for most people what will really matter is the layer 2/3 solutions and what properties they have. On chain transactions does not scale to planet level. The thinking these days is that the bitcoin blockchain should be used more like a court and less like the ledger it was initially intended to be.
It is similar to open source social media.
thats federation, not open source. reddit was open source for a while, but not federated – and now we are here. whatsapp uses an open source protocol, but isnt federated – some asshole hawaiian (resident of hawaii, not the other option) controls it. Signal is open source, but won’t federate, its controlled by people who are way more into crypto than helping their users (moxie was actively against federation, using such examples as email to prove how federation is a failure)
100% that being open source is not enough. Just like the fediverse the protocol is really important.
But if the fediverse protocol and all servers and clients are proprietary we would be in a bad place.
The bitcoin protocol makes it possible for everyone to run a bitcoin core node very similar to that anyone can run a fediverse server.
Btw, that signal is actively working against federation makes me so incredibly disappointed…
I’ll likely get downvoted but Polestar, the EV automaker that used to build performance variants for Volvo, uses blockchain to track minerals used in their EV’s.
Circulor Circulor’s blockchain technology enables tracing of extracted raw materials, particularly those with significant impact to communities and the environment.
I like that they use blockchain to ensure the minerals they use aren’t coming from negative sources but I’m sure someone will argue and say it’s stupid or that SQL can do the same.
Polestar uses contracts and audits to ethically source materials, not blockchain. It uses blockchain as a shitty append-only SQL database to (apparently) tell you where the materials came from. Let me quote from Circulor’s website:
data can be fed seamlessly to the blockchain via system integration using RESTful Web Service APIs with security and authentication protocols
So the chain is private and accessible only through a centralized, authenticated REST API. This is a traditional web application. A centralized append-only ledger is not even a blockchain.
This guy ICTs … Keep up the great work!
So you’re saying Polestar is lying about using blockchain?
https://media.polestar.com/global/en/media/pressreleases/500098
Polestar enters strategic partnership with blockchain provider Circulor
Collaboration targets blockchain traceability and CO2e tracking
Progressive in scope and ambition, partnership enables unprecedented supply chain transparencyWell, I’m saying Circulor is most likely lying about their “blockchain” actually being a blockchain, or that they’ve pointlessly set up extra nodes to perform redundant work in order to avoid technically lying.
Blockchain is completely pointless without 3rd parties being part of the network. It’s like me saying I run a personal social network for just myself.
It must be exhausting being so cynical.
Buzz words. It doesn’t matter if it’s true, as long as it sells. See, you remembered, so it worked.
Yes, it can probably be done with a traditional database
You could do literally the same thing with a series of private key signed envelopes containing the prior chain of signed content. Boom, verifiable chain of custody without any rainforests being burned down.
I’m hoping you’re being hyperbolic about burning rainforests because not every blockchain is power hungry like Bitcoin or the old the POW Ethereum.
Besides, the rainforest is being burned down to make way for more cattle to provide more beef. Not sure why you chose the rainforest as example of intense computational power.
It’s somewhat hyperbolic, but in relative terms, it is pretty wasteful to implement it with a blockchain over what I just suggested. Cryptographic consensus doesn’t solve anything for the given example that the verifiable chain of custody in my proposed alternative does not and there’s zero way it’s less expensive than a bunch of asymmetric signatures that can be verified offline on demand. If anything, it’s better than a blockchain since it would only require a majority of parties to be complicit in a lie to rewrite history in a blockchain full of parties that have no business with any given transaction other than to enforce immutability whereas it would require every single node in the chain of custody before you to be complicit in my proposal.
And I’m surprised that the rainforest thing confuses you. It and burning tires are the go-to colloquialisms for complaining about things that are unnecessarily environmentally hostile, particularly when talking about crypto crap. But yeah, blockchains are a solution in search of a problem, so the derision is intentional. There’s no legitimate problem that can be solved with blockchain that can’t be solved in a better way. Cryptocurrency only in theory and this supply chain problem are the closest it gets to blockchain making sense and it still fails to be better than non-blockchain alternatives.
No, because it would be trivial to make a change and regenerate the entire chain.
Yeah, you would only need to have every single private key for all nodes that follow you in the supply chain. Super trivial.
OK. So you are proposing a private blockchain with minimal data validation rules.
How do you decide who gets to add the next record?
You would also need some protection against all nodes sharing their keys.
It’s not a blockchain. It’s closer to a series of forwarded emails with certificate signing. Who gets to add the next record? How about the party that is doing that step of processing in the supply chain. And I have a great idea for protecting the keys. It’s called asymmetric key pairs. You can verify a signature using a public key without having the private key required to be able to generate that signature.
It’s not a blockchain. It’s closer to a series of forwarded emails with certificate signing.
You’ve got hash linked data, signatures, verification procedures, distributed storage. It’s not very sophisticated, but you are definitely on the path to reinventing the blockchain.
Who gets to add the next record? How about the party that is doing that step of processing in the supply chain.
Oh, so you want a new database for every item. Let’s have one database handling lots of items and validated in sequence.
And I have a great idea for protecting the keys. It’s called asymmetric key pairs.
Brilliant. And how is your invention different from a private permissioned blockchain?
Blockchain is the shitty reinvention of PGP, my dude. I don’t agree to this silly retronym for nearly 50 year old cryptographic methods. Yes, if you remove all the supposed advancements and advantages of blockchain, you’re left with the cryptographic foundation which was the only thing that had merit. Congratulations.
I’ve read through this whole thread, and I still haven’t really come to any solid conclusions on it. I’m skeptical of crypto as a kind of idiotic speculative market, but that’s also every market ever. But then, the blockchain is apparently different from crypto, even though they’re both hype-laden marketing terms that have been completely fucked up. I think doing [redacted] with crypto is still potentially cool, though I think it still has limited anonymity, from what I’ve heard, and the speculative market also fucks it up.
Is “the blockchain” just like some nerd shit that’s for internal hospital ledgers, and beyond that it’s all kind of moot garbage, or what? Someone spoonfeed me.
Blockchain is often described as a solution in search for a problem. It’s a clever technology, but people don’t really know what it can be used for besides storing cryptocurrency transactions.
People have thought about storing other kinds of data in the blockchain, like health records, but no one can really point out to why this would be better than other solutions.
To achieve something similar with health records without blockchain, all that is needed is just a cryptographic signature. The hospital cryptographically signs a digital health document and email it to you. The hospital in turn stores it in some shared database accessible by other hospitals. Done.
If the health record is somehow lost from the shared database, then you got your own copy of it as backup. They can’t modify the health record either, because then it would diverge from your own copy.
The worst thing they can do is to add falsified health records without your approval, but that’s a problem with blockchain as well. Blockchain cannot verify that the input data is truthful (garbage in, garbage out).
The cryptographic signature step is a part of blockchain either way, so there’s no extra technical overhead in the non-blockchain way.
deleted by creator
Now add that trustlessness is impossible and you can scratch the blockchain box for good.
You cannot get rid of trust in some form. You need entry to the system, so you need to trust its gateway. You need to trust the network to not have some vulnerability like a 50% attack. And eventually you need to trust the developers not to add critical bugs (that alone is virtually impossible) or pull off some scam.
So, since you need to trust someone, might as well choose some government regulated party like a bank or a lawyer and choose conventional and efficient tech.
I’m stupid, can you give me a like, more clear practical example of a good use of blockchain? Cause I get the sense that a good amount of this conflict, going off that flowchart, is going to be due to the evaluation of these situations as like, not needing to arise in the first place, or maybe like, a philosophical objection to the necessity of the technology, maybe. But I think a clearer example could help with this.
can you give me a like, more clear practical example of a good use of blockchain?
Do you see how all the answers are generic, tend to be long and read like a sales pitch? That’s because the actual answer is: no, there is no practical legal application that isn’t better solved with conventional tech.
The only application that is successfully used in practice is paying for organized crime: buying goods and services on the dark web and paying for extortion like ransomware attacks.
Git is not a blockchain. There is no distributed ledger; no consensus algorithm.
Ledger: repository database.
Consensus algorithm: repository access key.
Key word distributed ledger. Git repositories don’t talk to each other except when told to do so by users.
I shouldn’t need to explain why an access key is not a consensus algorithm. Seriously?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributed_ledger no need to talk automatically, only distribution necessary without single point of failure. say „synchronized“, if you mean realtime synchronized then not in git, but synchronized manually.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus_(computer_science) only need to determine which block to commit to database, access key do that. if meant in term of „which repo is real one“, signed commit optional feature, maybe that speak against it being blockchain because not by default.
The blockchain is essentially a ledger that tracks transactions (including the creation of currency). One thing that is not always clear is how important it is for a blockchain to be decentralized. When I say “decentralized,” I mean that many different people are operating a server that performs transactions on a larger network. These people are rewarded in currency for their efforts, and are sometimes referred to as “miners,” though this term is changing somewhat.
There are thousands of these servers in a network that are operating on and tracking the ledger for blockchains like Bitcoin or Ethereum. Any updates to the ledger are verified by all of these nodes. As long as 51% of nodes can verify a transaction, it will be added to the ledger. This means that as long as someone doesn’t own 51% of the network, they can’t just inject whatever transactions they want (i.e., fraudulent activity). In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.
I think this paves the way for a lot of the practical examples you’re looking for. For example, there’s no way for the network to decide to just give tons of money to a single entity for some “economic policy” like Too Big to Fail (i.e., corporate bailouts). This means you don’t have to wake up one morning worrying about whether or not your currency will rapidly inflate because of things like corruption. Another example is the true ownership of digital assets. NFTs have (rightly) gotten a lot of flack for being overpriced JPEGs, but there are real use cases here. A random middleman can’t just decide to price gouge because they own all the tickets first (Ticketmaster). Instead, artists can mint tickets on the blockchain (very important: this ensures authenticity) and then fans can buy them on the blockchain - no middle man required. You still show a QR code at the door for verification like you would now.
As long as 51% of nodes can verify a transaction, it will be added to the ledger. This means that as long as someone doesn’t own 51% of the network, they can’t just inject whatever transactions they want (i.e., fraudulent activity). In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.
Could like, 51% of the owners just coordinate to kind of, do a fraud? I mean it sounds like an inherently democratic system, but from what I’ve understood of, say, miners, right (dunno how this works for proof of stake, but I imagine it has similar problems), those rigs are gonna be bought by people who disproportionately have higher earnings and can afford more GPUs in finland or wherever, and then that’s going to just kinda recreate the same power dynamic that we see in the real world already. Which ends up in the same kind of speculative market garbage we have with stock ownership in companies already.
I also don’t really understand how a ticketing system would really work on the blockchain. I probably don’t know enough about cryptography to know how it might work, but I got the sense that nfts weren’t even overpriced jpegs, they were overpriced links with pseudo-legal contracts, that were still prone to link rot, and didn’t really indicate any IP ownership. If you had a code on the ticket instead that could only be verified as real, rather than fake, by a ticketing person, instead of like, a link, that would probably be the use case, right? am I getting that correct, is that something cryptography can do? probably, right?
Also, can someone just like, steal your ticket still? Or like impersonate you as the ticket guy, or what? Like from the others have told me and also just from what I know already, you can’t really change the chain unless, like you said, you have 51% of the owners, so how would you be able to like, put something in the chain that identifies the owner as being the owner? Wouldn’t it be more secure to have just like, a verifiable code or something, that you can delete, that isn’t public, between the artist and the buyer? Then you could ensure anonymity between the buyer and the venue and stuff, you could work in establishing characteristics like oh here’s my driver’s license, here’s my government ID, without putting that stuff on the blockchain, which seems like a bad idea.
In practice, this makes these networks very resilient to fraud.
Could like, 51% of the owners just coordinate to kind of, do a fraud?
Sybil attacks sound like the kind of thing you’re talking about. I don’t have the expertise to go into it, but one person (or a group) creates lots of nodes and uses that influence to do bad things to the network, potentially including fraud. Or as you suggest, legitimate users can just coordinate to do whatever they wanted (see ethereum vs ethereum classic if you want a chuckle).
I want to make a note that the networks are only resilient to a specific type of fraud - people trying to enter data in a way that doesn’t meet the criteria of the system. That’s all well and good for wallet to wallet transactions, but when you have transactions going off chain (like buying something, trading for other kinds of coins, doing anything with crypto exchanges), there are still plenty of other kinds of fraud that are possible and happen all the time, because while the chain is fairly trustworthy, nothing else about the system is. Most kinds of fraud involve doing things that technically you have permission to do, because you lied to people to access their password or promised them bigger returns in the future or missold a product or service etc and all of that is still possible under crypto. In some cases crypto is more vulnerable to these things because of having no central authority or regulator or laws or whatever.
deleted by creator
I just wrote out another comment, and I think I kinda figured out my core question, but, is there a way to save my medical information without doxxing myself, if this is supposed to be like, a public database, you know, if that’s kinda the point, is that everyone can look at everyone else’s stuff? I got the impression that a lot of the current blockchain stuff wasn’t capable of the necessary levels of storage that would be required for like, health records, on their own.
I dunno, maybe you could have some situation where you have a key, that opens up some cryptography on the blockchain, and that blockchain piece when unlocked gives you another key that lets you access your medical records, or something like that, and that might be able to fit. But, then, I don’t really see how that’s any different from just having like, the key to the person’s medical records be contingent on person. Like biometric security, or government ID, or something.
Point out wherever I’ve made wrong assumptions here, I’m just kind of talking out my ass, and hoping that I’m correct inso that the conversation can continue and I can scrape more out of it, I don’t really expect to be right.
Even if a particular coin has a finite number of possible coins, it exists in an unbounded universe of other coins.
Other SHIT coins… to be precise
Only my made up digital monopoly money is legit, all the rest are pointless.
What is this argument even supposed to mean? Just because other coins exist doesn’t have any effect on a particular coin’s value or use case. I’m not even pro crypto or trying to be a dick or anything, just totally lost.
People are always like “it doesn’t do anything we couldn’t do with SQL,” as if riding a horse isn’t an improvement in transportation over walking. Things don’t have to be impossible to accomplish in any other way in order to be marginally more useful or efficient depending on the goal. Public ledgers are indeed useful. Blockchain is one technology among a small handful that might be appropriate for your project depending on trust dynamics it demands. Consensus protocols are also useful.
One example, right now our global food supply’s movement and distribution is based largely on market dynamics. Say we want to focus on distribution based on need instead. A blockchain based ledger could allow a fred to ‘commit’ a few bushels of carrots which george ‘commits’ to transporting to mike, who in turn has committed to do do a supply run to Uruguay with his barge. Could they have done this in excel? Probably. Would it be more organized on blockchain? Yes. Would a regular database with a lot of contributors that is carefully designed to keep out bad actors work too? Yes, sure.
Blockchain is a nebulous buzzword with a vague meaning. But I have yet to see a sensible definition of a blockchain that doesn’t include git. At the end of the day they are both just Merkle trees.
Git is pretty useful imo.
Blockchain is pretty well defined.
Git doesn’t have update rules that are only valid if signed by a particular private key.
Please share a source! I can’t find anything as robust as a whitepaper (the bitcoin whitepaper doesn’t use the term).
NIST informally defines it as:
A distributed digital ledger of cryptographically-signed transactions that are grouped into blocks. Each block is cryptographically linked to the previous one (making it tamper evident) after validation and undergoing a consensus decision. As new blocks are added, older blocks become more difficult to modify (creating tamper resistance). New blocks are replicated across copies of the ledger within the network, and any conflicts are resolved automatically using established rules.
Which git certainly meets this.
IBM informally defines it as:
Blockchain is a shared, immutable ledger that facilitates the process of recording transactions and tracking assets in a business network. An asset can be tangible (a house, car, cash, land) or intangible (intellectual property, patents, copyrights, branding).
Which git meets.
Git is hash linked, not cryptographicly linked. Only cryptographicly valid changes are allowed to blockchain state. All data can be modified in git.
Yes. IBMs definition is bad and could equally apply to git. They’ve totally forgotten about the private key aspect.
I’ll see if I can source a better definition online, but make no promises.
Edit: https://aws.amazon.com/what-is/blockchain/ the last line is not applicable to Git
Oh a 3rd definition, that definitely hurts the case that blockchain is vague ill defined term. If it were a well-defined term, there would be whitepapers defining it like merkle trees or bitcoin. Blockchain is just a marketing term defined by businesses, not scientists or engineers and thus is vague and variable.
I also don’t think your definition is a very good definition. Do you think git fundamentally changes when it moves from sha1 to sha256? Or are you referring to the fact that the payloads of cryptocurrency’s blockchain is required to be signed (just like you can optionally require git commits to be signed)? I don’t think that’s fundamental to blockchain either.
Only cryptographicly valid changes are allowed to blockchain state. All data can be modified in git.
No. You can’t modify the chain in git. Each commit is an immutable snapshot of the repository. To change history you have to create a new hash and then broadcast that to everyone that they should stop using the old one. Depending in how your network is setup you may onky have to convince a centralized server, or you might have to convince 51% of the actors on your network or you may just choose to only form a network that agrees with you. You could alter bitcoin’s blockchain too, but you’d need 51% of the network to agree with you.
Oh a 3rd definition, that definitely hurts the case that blockchain is vague ill defined term.
The phrases used to describe the technology to the public may change, but the technolgical approach doesn’t
If it were a well-defined term, there would be whitepapers defining it like merkle trees or bitcoin.
There are hundreds of blockchain whitepapers, all of which link blocks of data via hash functions and only accept state changes if they are valid and cryptographicaly signed.
Blockchain is just a marketing term defined by businesses, not scientists or engineers and thus is vague and variable.
If we were discussing web3 or Metaverse then you may have a point. But no-one in tech is confused about what blockchain is anymore.
Do you think git fundamentally changes when it moves from sha1 to sha256?
No.
Or are you referring to the fact that the payloads of cryptocurrency’s blockchain is required to be signed
Yes. Exactly this.
(just like you can optionally require git commits to be signed)?
Optionally is the key word. Blockchain transactions must be signed, and they must be accepted as following the blockchain rules by validators.
I don’t think that’s fundamental to blockchain either.
Find me a blockchain that doesn’t require signed transactions to make state changes.
No. You can’t modify the chain in git.
I didn’t say anything about modify the chain.
Each commit is an immutable snapshot of the repository.
A commit can contain any data it likes. A commit to a blockchain is highly restricted. Only cryptographicly valid rule following changes are allowed to blockchain state.
Optionally is the key word. Blockchain transactions must be signed, and they must be accepted as following the blockchain rules by validators.
But this is just a policy decision, not a property of the technology. You can easily implement a script that checks if every commit from remotes are signed, accepts them if they are and drops them if they aren’t or the signature is invalid.
If you contribute to a project where the majority require signed commits, then you need to sign commits in order for your change to be integrated into the consensus.
That has nothing to do with the technology itself, just with the application.
So if you state that signatures are required to be a blockchain, then you can use git to create a blockchain, by just having that policy.
(IMO I wouldn’t say that signatures are required, just that blockchains usually have them.)
You can easily implement a script that checks if every commit from remotes are signed, accepts them if they are and drops them if they aren’t or the signature is invalid.
Now add some logic to check whether the actual data is valid (i.e. bob has enough coins in his account to send to Charlie).
Make some incentive to ensure only the main branch survives and forks are either eliminated or merged.
Automate
Now git replicates blockchain’s functionality.
So if you state that signatures are required to be a blockchain, then you can use git to create a blockchain, by just having that policy.
Yes, but add automatically processing the content of the commit for validity and incentives to reduce the number of forks.
(IMO I wouldn’t say that signatures are required, just that blockchains usually have them.)
Without public key cryptography you just have a hash linked list (like Git).
While blockchain is well defined, it in itself is not a product but a technology. I think what the other commenter is getting at is that simply saying something “is blockchain” means very little because what the blockchain does depends on the implementation, so when used in marketing it’s just a nebulous buzzword in that it doesn’t actually give you much information about what the product is. Same with terms like cloud, AI, virtual reality, etc.
Yes. There were a lot of companies selling “blockchain base” solutions where blockchain wasn’t really needed in the solution at all.
Then it was Metaverse based solutions. (I would argue VR is well defined)
Now it’s AI solutions.
But I think “cloud” is now post that marketing phase, and blockchain is heading that way.
Well yes but can you pump and dump git commits ?
Who decides to commit changes though? A human. A human who can be corrupt.
The best use case for blockchains in my opinion is elections. The dude who owns the election server won’t be able to manipulate results in any way.
While manipulating results isn’t impossible in case of a blockchain, it is still very very difficult.
The dude who owns the election server won’t be able to manipulate results in any way.
Sure he will. He can just ignore votes for one candidate and not add them to the chain. Blockchains are only resistant to manipulation if they’re distributed and people agree on the canonical version. Even then if enough people agree to manipulate them they can, like they did with Ethereum.
Can someone tell me how decentralized money became the enemy? It is decentralized currency that is like everything we stand for literally using mastodon protocol here.
it’s not the creators fault that the first thing the userbase did was centralize it onto these marketplaces lol. I’m reminding people that this is conceptually great but terrible implementation, across the board.
Ok but the Fossil version control system (which uses a mini-blockchain to store software version history) is pretty cool
You didn’t actually read the page you linked to, did you?
Let’s just jump to the conclusion:
This author believes it is technologically indefensible to call Fossil a “blockchain” in any sense likely to be understood by a majority of those you’re communicating with. Using a term in a nonstandard way just because you can defend it means you’ve failed any goal that requires clear communication. The people you’re communicating your ideas to must have the same concept of the terms you use.
(Emphasis mine)
Hint: a blockchain is always a Merkel tree, but a Merkel tree is not always a blockchain.
To clarify further, a blockchain requires some kind of distributed consensus. If you have two versions of the same blockchain, there must be a way to figure out which one of these is the one everybody else is following. In Bitcoin this is achieved with proof of work (i.e the version of the chain that has wasted most electricity).
If you don’t have distributed consensus, then you just have a git repo.
“crypto currency is a scam and it’s bad for the environment!..now excuse me, I have stocks to buy!”
Stocks are not bad for the environment the way crypto is bad for the environment. I’m not defending companies or the ethics of stock trading, but generating stocks doesn’t consume massive amounts of electricity. That’s like blaming money itself for environmental damage that spending it could theoretically cause.
There are so many legitimate arguments against publicly traded companies and capitalism in general, but this one just isn’t it.
Stocks are not bad for the environment the way crypto is bad for the environment
Those computers the stock market runs on must be generating electricity then…right?
Crypto isn’t traded via electricity burning computers? That’s news to me. I guess after coins are done burning electricity being minted people just trade them on paper.
Seriously though, all the examples you can think of apply equally to crypto, stocks and fiat currency. The only outlier is crypto, which wastes massive amounts of electricity to generate that it doesn’t need to.
But you knew all that already, you’re just arguing in bad faith so you can “be right”.
But you knew all that already, you’re just arguing in bad faith so you can “be right”.
“Bad Faith”? You think I don’t believe the things I say?
I like Crypto currency because there isn’t any government that can actually control it or monitor it. It’s like gold. Better than any stock or cash or credit of any “legit” currency in any account.
Of course, the majority of crypto is worthless and will always be worthless, but Bitcoin and Monero are worth A LOT, then there’s Dogecoin which is worth almost nothing, but it’s value goes up and down so drastically every time it changes that it’s still worth investing in.
