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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Well, 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.
I’m kinda amazed I haven’t seen anyone mention the biggest upcoming use case for block chain here. In a world where anyone can create any media with Ai we are going to need robust systems of cryptographic proof of origin and history that anyone can access and that is not controlled by anyone who may wish to manipulate information. The exact strength of block chain.
As for cryptocurrency I’m seeing a lot of confusion here in how people think it works. While scaling has been an issue its not an insolvable one and multiple solutions exist. The issue with crypto is its image not the tech in general. And thats a combination of people using it to scam and governments/banks doing their best to discredit it.
It failed because owning digital collectables is dumb or because block chain failed to create immutable cryptographic proofs and history that could be read by anyone? I think your missing the forest for the trees. Confusing a demo case for the tech that made it possible.
It failed because an “immutable cryptographic proof” that the information being represented is valid is about as useful as a handwritten certificate that says you own Sagittarius.
Cryptography cannot verify your ownership of Sagittarius; it is not an authority. It cannot prevent you from claiming you do, either: anybody can enter whatever they want into the system.
And funny enough, this cryptographic lock and key isn’t even undisputable. If you have a dated record from 2020, and someone else wants it, they can just verify theirs on a different chain. Who is to say which chain is “more correct”? The dates? Dates don’t matter. If you were unlucky enough not to publish your work before someone else does, you don’t cryptographically own your work. If you were lucky and you had published, someone else can just lie that they weren’t ready and you stole it from them. So, even with all of our fancy math, we’re still back to he-said, she-said.
Worse, most blockchain records I know of are way too small for images, let alone video, so all they do is cryptographically “verify” URLs to the work. What exactly is the point of this? Can the files served by these URLs not simply be… changed?
I know they can be changed because C2PA has this very same, exact problem.
The blockchain is, at best, a database. The fact that it’s public doesn’t mean anything—it might be worse, even.
Why bother reinventing all of this? We have institutions already that keep records. What social good is bought from having the most public of all records?
The use case here is proof of origin and history not ownership of a hosted file. You can’t directly apply NFTs to this.
The verification of hashes of files is the point. You want to be able to say “this video I’m watching was unaltered and signed by source X who has a verifiable reputation of providing data which has been verified by other entities who also have been verified”. You don’t store the media on the block chain.
Again the key here is that its a reputation system. Everything in life comes down to he said she said. But having perminant history of what they said and the evidence used is what allows you to weight the claims. Or yes, you could just pick one entity to tell you want to believe…
I would argue public records are a utility in their own right. But the point is that if you allow an institution to hold all the records they decide which ones can be seen and have ability to manipulate the truth. I realize that many Lemmy users seem to be fine with that but IMO your just picking and agreeing with your chosen leader at that point. A free open and transparent system of reputation that is not controlled by anyone ensures access to information for everyone while hindering the ability of bad actors to manipulate the " truth".
I find the “we already have people who keep history for us” argument odd. Sure, we do. But then is it really an issue to have another open system along side them? What cost is it to you? Why be opposed to multiple ways to try and achieve a goal? I’m not saying traditional organizations should not exist. I’m saying this tech provides a pretty rubust solution and should be taken seriously.
Anyways I know we arnt going to agree. But I wanted to put my argument here for anyone reading.
Its always worth exploring multiple solutions to a problem.
Blockchain is a synchronization and consensus mechanism that provides an authoritative record. None of your issues are unique to blockchains if multi possible authorities exist they way have conflicting rules and records. Blockchains just allow the addition of new entities and users without the traditional costs and scaling issues of existing organization is.
Great response on why NFTs are lame for what most are being used for.
I play some blockchain games where the NFT represents digital items, and the only real use case for it being on blockchain is having the marketplace to trade in game items for money. And that doesn’t even need to be blockchain, it’s like an overengineered steam marketplace.
The way NFTs are currently impliented is just down right dumb haha. And their stupidity hurts blockchain’s image and puts so much mud in the water when it comes to people understanding the tech. Add all the greedy people who try to exploit that confusion and the whole thing gets really ugly really fast.
Sadly this all then becomes the focus and its all people seem to see when they try and understand the tech.
Say I want to say that I created an image. I could post that image’s hash to a block chain, and point to it as something anyone can check.
But you already have to trust me for that to be valuable. So I can just host that hash in any of a myriad of conventional methods that are simpler, more performant, and less wasteful.
Your missing the history part. Obviously any signature in isolation is only as good as your knowlage of that person. Thats how cryptography has worked classically. A block chain is not just a hosting service. Of course that could be done cheaper. The point is to have imutable history of what information is provided. This allows a reputation system as well as the ability for parties to endorce or rebuke information in a way that can not be covered up later.
Trust requires reputation. No anonymous person in isolation can be trusted. The point is to allow collaborative verification with proof. And that can not be done by a centralized host or authority without giving that authority control over what is “true”.
The only thing a malicious host can do is to omit information, which can be mitigated simply by using more than one host, which is still cheaper than using a blockchain. You could have each signature include the previous one, which will allow anybody to verify that they have a complete prefix of the history. Host them on, say Imgur and Imgchest, and it would even be free, whereas hosting it on say the ethereum blockchain would cost about 10$ per image (Based on this: etherscan.io/gastracker#costTxAction. I’m lowballing my estimate. If its too high, please tell me by how much, and how you arrived at your number.)
In other words, even in the best case scenario, using the blockchain would only provide negligible benefits compared to much cheaper alternatives.
Omitting information is a pretty serious attack in a reputation based system. It would be like if all 1 star reviews on a product are omitted. You can have multiple hosts but then its on the viewer to find and verify on other hosts. And there is no garentee a history will continue to be hosted long term. Likley many histories will be lost over time. Especially considering these hosts then need a profit motive or some other motive to continue hosting them. You can have chains of signatures together similar to how SSL certs work but you will still need an authority at the end of that chain and it would result in many versions of the chain as multiple entities interact with it.
The cost of using a block chain is what keeps the motives in line. Hosting costs money. And if hosting costs are not covered then it leaves the door open for loss of data or malicious motives. Tho I agree base chain transactions are often too expensive. This is solved by any one of the many scaling solutions that exists. Tho I admit they are all still pretty early tech. With such solutions costs should be at least 10x smaller.
I would argue the ability to have a single distributed ledger and its forever history, colloraboration tools and inability to have information left out is considerably more then a marginal improvement.
@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.
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.
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: 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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
There is a lot of propaganda pushing the price down. It’s funny that they think the cryptobros have half a trillion dollars and still keep pushing the price up.
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.
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.
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.
Bitcoin was one of an alarming number of important events where I was sort of nearby and aware but just fucking barely involved. And I figured it’d grow to be a fantastic tool for weird art sites and other places where PayPal was the fucking devil. Basically a non-joke version of Beenz, which I absolutely signed up for when that was a thing. But what happened instead is that finance bros treated the randomized incentive to participate as an exploitable goal that turned electricity into money. And here we are.
So any inflationary “cryptocurrency” is probably better-off being centralized… like Beenz. It’s not like security is super duper important when the whole idea is to constantly lose value. That goal also underlines a much simpler way to grow and encourage participation: you can just give people money. It’s a fiat currency. And if we’re deliberately expecting the value to halve, every single year, it means we can give away as many arbitrary units are are currently in circulation.
Hyperinflation in real-world currencies is ruinous because all of the new money goes to a few assholes who already have all of the money. The state prints Marks or Lira or whatever and shovels them at a few buddy-buddy business owners. But if it was distributed to everyone who had some money… nothing would change. A hamburger would cost twice as much, but there’s suddenly twice as much in your wallet, so, okay. And a flat distribution that gives everyone the same constant stipend would gradually even out the very rich and the very poor toward a shared average.
As a real printed currency, this would be dumb. But as a secondary, global, internet-centric joke, obviously you’d just get in and out as quickly as possible. Nobody would bother hoarding these things as they shrink while you look at them. So liquidity should be great just because there’s no point staying in. Hard questions about deceased users’ password would slowly cease to matter.
This means the value represented would be real. It sounds paradoxical, right? But actual crypto keeps going up up up despite being less useful every day. It represents no economic activity besides trading the digital tulip-bulbs. It is raw speculation. Meanwhile, line-goes-down-coin encourages people to throw it at weird fetish art or ridiculous craft projects, or just give it away as soon as possible, while it still matters. So people finding themselves with an abundance, far beyond the current shared average, are directly rewarded for whatever it is they do for the fake money. And then if they’re smart they’ll trade it for real money, toot sweet.
There’s a wide variety of legal things that people want to pay for, where credit cards will tell you to pound sand. Remember when OnlyFans considered banning NSFW content? Yeah, the Visa / Mastercard duopoly pulls that shit with every website that’s mildly gross. Same impetus as advertisers creating censorship by not wanting to be associated with whatever they’ve shoved their way into.
I was really hoping Bitcoin would get around that shit. But despite line going up - do you see many merchants accepting it, nowadays?
Just wanted to point out real world application for blockchain currently in use. IBM Blockchain is used by Cigna Healthcare, HSBC, Kroger…etc. It’s all extremely boring stuff so no one ever talks about it.
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.
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.
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.
A blockchain is just an verifiable chain of transactions using cryptography and some agreed upon protocol. Each “block” in the chain is a block of data that follows a format specified by the protocol. The protocol also decides who can push blocks and how to verify a block is valid. The advantages it has comes from the fact the protocol can describe a method of giving authority across a pool of untrusted third parties, while still making sure none of them can cheat. Currently the most popular forms are Proof of Work (PoW) and Proof of Stake (PoS).
Bitcoin for example is just an outgoing transaction to a specific crypto key (which is similar to a checking account) as a reward for “mining” the block, followed by a list of transactions going from a specific account to another account. These are verified by needing a special chunk of data that turns the overall hash of the entire block to a binary chunk containing a number of 0 bits in front, which makes it hard to compute and a race to get the right input data. This way of establishing an authority is called Proof of Work, and whoever is first and gets their block across the network faster wins. Other cryptocurrencies like Ethereum use Proof of Stake where you “stake” currency you’ve already acquired as a promise that you won’t cheat, and if someone can prove you cheated your stake is lost.
The problem it solves is not needing a trusted third party to handle this process, such as a government agency or an organization. Everyone can verify the integrity of a blockchain by using the protocol and going over each block, making sure the data follows the rules. This blockchain is distributed so everyone can make sure they are on the same chain, else it’s considered a “forked” chain and will migrate back to the point of consensus. This can be useful for situations where the incentive to cheat the system for monetary or political gain outweigh the cost of running a distributed ledger. It can also be useful when you don’t want anyone selectively removing past data as the chain of verifiability will be broken. The only issue with this is you need some way to reach a consensus of who gets to make each block in the chain, as someone need to be the authority for that instant in time. This is where the requirement of Proof of Work (PoS) or Proof of Stake (PoS) come in. Without these or another system that distributes the authority to create blocks, you lose the power of the blockchain.
Examples I’ve heard of are tracking shipments or parts (similar to how the FAA already mandates part traceability) and medical records. This way lots of organizations can publish records relating to these to a central system that isn’t under any single entities control, and can’t change their records to suit their needs.
These systems are not fool proof though, PoW has the ability to be abused using a 51% attack and PoS requires some form of punishment for trying to cheat the system (in cryptocurrency you “stake” currency and lose it if you try to cheat the system). Both of these run into issues when there is no incentive to invest resources into the system, a lack of distribution across independent parties, or one party has sufficient power to gain a majority control of the network.
Overall you are right to be skeptical of cryptocurrency, it’s been a long time since I participated due to the waves of scam coins and general focus on illegal activities such as gambling. The lack of central authorities also perpetuates the problem of cryptoscams, as anyone can start one and there are limited controls over stopping such scams. This is not dissimilar to previous investment scams though, it’s just the modern iteration of such scams. The real question is does it solve a real problem, as Bitcoin did in the sense it helps facilitate transactions outside of government controls. You might not agree with that but it does give it an intrinsic value to a large number of people looking to move currency without as much paperwork. Now if it makes it worth $68.5k USD (at current prices) is a different story, different people have different use cases and I only highlighted one of those.
I read all the replies in kind of, an order going from simplest to what looked to be like the more complicated ones, and this seems like the least charged and best explanation of the sort of, externalities, and it seems like a pretty good overview of it. The other guy did a good summary of how the technology works for a dumbass like me but I’m still not sure I got all of it.
So, like, you could kind of conceive of a use for these technologies generally, right, but it would seem like, even from your explanation and also from what I kind of passively know already, this is kind of, reliant on a libertarian conception of society, which isn’t necessarily bad. I think more concerningly it also seems like both of the basic technologies, there, PoW and PoS, are vulnerable to abuse from the powerful, or from those who have more resources, with maybe PoS being less so, I dunno, still don’t really get how that one works specifically which might change it. Which is sort of, antithetical to a libertarian conception of society. I mean unless you’re an ancap but those guys are dumbasses.
So I dunno. It seems like a kind of inherently conflicted technology to me, like, paradoxical. I kinda hope someone can conceivably work out the problems of power abuse, but that would seem to be what I define as a “whole enchilada” style of issue, there.
Still, I do like the ability to freely buy drugs and circumvent the government, that’s kind of epic. Well, most of the time, anyways. Maybe not when the CIA does it, or when narcos and cartels do it, but I dunno how much either of them have tied up in crypto, it’d probably make more sense for both of them just to deal in fiat currency or trade resources or something.
The cryptography has much simpler algebraic analogues - what we are looking for is a “one-way function”. This means a mathematical symbol that only works on the left side of the equals. The simplest one is the remainder of a division. For example if I told you that I had a remainder of 5 after dividing by 20, you wouldn’t know if the original numerator was 25, 45, 65, 85, and so on. This operator is called mod (modulus). Even if you don’t know what value I started with, It’s not hard to guess what possible numerators could be with modulus. That’s where the cryptography comes into play: a cryptographic hash is designed so that it’s practically impossible to guess the original numerator. We’ll stick with the modulus for explanatory purposes, but imagine that you can’t list off possible numerators like I did.
Now we can invent a puzzle for a computer to solve. We’ll start off with the same values as before, but - again - we are disallowing easy guesses. This forces us to check 1 mod 20, 2 mod 20, 3 mod 20, 4 mod 20, 5 mod 20 and so on. Eventually we’ll hit 25 mod 20 giving us the solution to X mod 20 = 25. Now you can go back to the person that gave you the puzzle and prove that you’ve done 25 steps of work to arrive at a solution (or have made a lucky 1/25 guess). This is called “proof of work”. A cryptographic has consists of a certain number of bits, such as 256 bits - this means a series of 1’ s and 0’s 256 long. The puzzle presented to the computer is “find the numerator that results in the first 50 bits being zero” (the more bits are required to be zero, the longer it will take to find the answer). Because of the incredibly slim chance of guessing the correct numerator, it doesn’t really matter if the computer counts up (like we did with modulus) or guesses. So, in practice, everybody trying to find the solution starts at a random number and starts counting, or trying other random numbers, until someone wins the jackpot. It’s basically a lottery, but the correct numbers have to be discovered instead of being dropped out of a glass ball at the end of the week. Once a computer finds a solution, everybody else playing the game can check their numerator as [probabilistic] proof that they have done work.
Now we can use this lottery to create a blockchain. We start with 5 things: a globally agreed on solution we are looking for (789), an initial block (which is just a number - lets say 12345), Bob’s account #5 of $100, and Sally’s account #6 of $200, and a huge amount of players of the above game. Sally wants to transfer $20 to Bob, so she says to all the players: “I’m #6 and want to give #5 $20. There’s a $1 prize for finding a new block for me.” All the players make a new denominator, by placing the numbers next to eachother - so 12345 6 200 5 100 20 1 - or just 1234562005100201. All the players start trying to find the number that will result in 789. Eventually someone finds 1234562005100990 after a lot of work/guesses. Everybody checks their work 1234562005100990 mod 1234562005100201 = 789. The winning player receives their prize, and now everybody has a new block to start from: 1234562005100201 1234562005100990. Next time someone wants to send some money they will use 12345620051002011234562005100990 as the initial block instead of 12345. Hence, we have set up a chain starting with:
12345 -> 12345620051002011234562005100990 -> …
There’s your block…chain. Anybody can independently verify that the work has been done by checking the answers. It’s incredibly elegant but, as we’ve seen, incredibly destructive.
Good explanation. I am extremely bad at math, I never made it past kind of, high school algebra, and I still can’t do basic math very well, but this explained it pretty well, thank you. So, someone has to start a transaction before mining can start, if that’s how it works?
It’s the whole web 3 concept of the community powers the infrastructure to run the community. It’s an enticing concept, The people using the service pay with their CPU and internet connection to use the service. It makes what would be a rather expensive infrastructure almost free.
With blockchain they’re doing some smart things, you can wrap code around the ledgers, in the end it’s just varying fancy levels of receipts verified and secured by the community. It’s verifiable but anonymous.
But then you’ve got cryptocurrency doing complex math burning through tons of electricity looking for unicorns to add to the ledger, in a massive pyramid scheme. Okay, it’s not exactly a pyramid scheme. Whoever starts a given currency makes the vast majority of the money off of it when the coins are easy to find, but at some point it is pretty close to any other given financial system, with the benefits of being anonymous and verifiable.
The bitcoins are just entries on the ledgers. But then s*** like NFTs are on ledgers. Someone sells you a receipt for a JPEG on a URL. It’s all only worth what someone will pay you for it. And without a whole bunch of regulation, it’s not exactly a safe market.
So data stores tend to present interfaces which allow the CRUD operations on each record: Create, Read, Update, and Destroy.
Create: You hit submit on a comment form Read: Your client app shows the content of the comment Update: You hit submit on the comment editing form Destroy: You delete the comment
Well, in some cases it’s very handy to make a data store with only two operations: Create, and Read.
This is called a “log”. A log is an append-only data structure.
One of the benefits of using a log is that two different processes can operate on the data, at different times, and can be confident they’re operating on the same context despite not being in communication with each other.
This “log” structure could be useful for instance in recording the moves of a chess game. Then, a hundred years later, someone can read each move out of a book and deterministically re-create the board state.
Now they know that they are looking at the same chess game that Ben Franklin was in 1775, despite not being in touch with Ben at all.
Really big, distributed systems benefit from this “synchronization without communication” feature of logs.
Relying on a log requires you to trust that nobody else has Update or Destroy access. For it to work correctly and everyone be on the same page, Updates and Destroys need to never happen.
With a coordinated system like people trying to understand historical chess games, or a corporation like LinkedIn seeking its own self interest, there’s no trust issue.
But with other things, like “who’s got how much money”, people don’t want to have to trust that some centralized log owner is modifying the data on the sly.
That’s where blockchain goes beyond a regular log. It’s a log designed to resist tampering, because each “block” in the chain goes through a distributed checking process where many copies of the log are used, and everyone checks each other’s copies to ensure nobody is cheating.
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.
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.
Blockchains are also great for the verification of digital goods as tangible assets. While I’m not sure we reach this level of meme, people could 100% mint their own house’s deed and trade that as a legit way to buy/sell their house.
I am very carefully avoiding the words “NFT” because they are another horrible use-case of a blockchain (and a prime example of how capitalists turn a good tech into something stupid for a quick buck), but this would theoretically be a tokenized-security with a 1:1 to the actual deed to the house.
Is that more secure than the normal process of buying a house? Do you really need it to be external to a 3rd party when the transfer of homes already exists? No not really lol, hence why we probably see it the most in highly regulated industries like biotech and finance first.
HIPPA/Securities-laws (or lack-thereof) will require a tough regulatory framework that “could” realistically be done via a 3rd party, but you have to ask yourself if you trust big-pharma and wallstreet enough to regulate themselves like that.
Edit: Looked up and saw c/lemmyshitpost, maybe I’m spending too much time elucidating a response on a meme thread but this is my take on the tech.
I understand blockchain as a concept, and kind of hownit plays into cryptocurrency, but understanding a true example of blockchain use outside of finances is something I needed more info on, thank you
The big improvement is the removal of the need to trust some 3rd party but also to add the precision and complexity of computer language to some domain. For example health care data, a block chain system would make one standard for how the records are stored, it would make it so the data in encrypted by the patient and they alone could grant access. When a new provider wants access there is one standard way that is automated and secure. None of which is dependent on a 3rd party who can be compromised or become corrupt and no longer act in good faith. Obviously there is a lot of details here dependent on making the block chain work flawlessly.
Imo block chains have 2 core issues to over come in order to really solve problems. First is being constructed so that they are bug free. Software is not a mature enough discipline for that as of yet. Second, is what happens when you loose you key or it gets stolen. If someone steals you Bitcoin private key, you can’t get them back after they transfer them out. Or if you just loose the key your up a creek. What is required is a way to prove you are you to the system that can’t be stolen and can’t be lost. That is a far harder question.
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.
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.
A blockchain can provide an irrevocable record, and it can provide a mechanism for uncooperating parties to agree that the record should be created. This is usually used for financial transactions involving coins of dubious value, but it can also be used for recording transactions of real world assets as long as those transactions can be faithfully linked to the event on the blockchain. Therefore the blockchain doesn’t really prove that a transaction is fraudulent or not, all it proves is that a sufficient number of parties believe it is not.
as long as those transactions can be faithfully linked to the event on the blockchain.
That kind of seems like the big glaring video game boss style weak point, to me. I feel like you’d still need some external third party to verify that everything is properly linked up to the blockchain, or like, someone could just impersonate someone else through whatever things are used to link something to the blockchain, and then it’s just kinda back to square one, I would think. I dunno, I think also maybe I just don’t really quite get it.
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.
…m.wikipedia.org/…/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.
Distributed ledger data is typically spread across multiple nodes (computational devices) on a P2P network, where each replicates and saves an identical copy of the ledger data and updates itself independently of other nodes. The primary advantage of this distributed processing pattern is the lack of a central authority, which would constitute a single point of failure. When a ledger update transaction is broadcast to the P2P network, each distributed node processes a new update transaction independently, and then collectively all working nodes use a consensus algorithm to determine the correct copy of the updated ledger. Once a consensus has been determined, all the other nodes update themselves with the latest, correct copy of the updated ledger.
From your first link. This does not describe how git functions. Did you actually read the page?
The consensus problem requires agreement among a number of processes (or agents) for a single data value. Some of the processes (agents) may fail or be unreliable in other ways, so consensus protocols must be fault tolerant or resilient. The processes must somehow put forth their candidate values, communicate with one another, and agree on a single consensus value.
From your second this. Again this description does not match with git.
You’re right in that automation is not technically required; you can build a blockchain using git by having people perform the distribution and consensus algorithms themselves. Obviously that doesn’t make git itself a blockchain in the same way it doesn’t make IP a blockchain.
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.
I like this flowchart but honestly most third party data handling solutions are just asking for a major breach: stoking vulnerable people over the coals.
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.
The solution to the requirement of minimal trust is not to just give up on and trust few peopme with everything. 50% attacks in large networks are next to impossible.
That highly depends on what blockchain implementation is being used and what it’s being used for. Blockchains used for craptocurrency are highly inefficient, which is the vast majority. But there are a small handful of specialized (proprietary) blockchains that are just efficient enough to be practical in their highly specific use case.
Walmarts proprietary food tracking system based on Hyperledger Fabric that they partnered with IBM to tweak & implement, enabling customers to track ingredients back to the farms within seconds, improving food safety, optimizing supply chain operations, enabling efficient tracking of stores and distribution centers, enhancing procurement management by collecting data on product origins, batch numbers, and quality parameters through QR codes and e-certificates.
Their prior database lacked transparency, real-time tracking, & scalability making tracing take days.
Just an FYI, Hyperledger Fabric is not like the blockchains for craptocurrency. It’s a highly modular, permissioned not permissionless, distributed ledger & it allows for pluggable consensus mechanisms. It’s very likely that Walmart uses a custom consensus algorithm and nothing like any of the public PoW, PoS, PoA, or PoET consensus algorithms.
Hyperledger is just git but with fancy buzzwords. It’s like taking everything that makes blockchain, and then remove everything that makes blockchain special. All you have left is another centralized system.
That’s an incredibly wrong oversimplification.
Git doesn’t have any consensus mechanisms, chaincode execution or ledger, is just a history tracker & manipulator. Neither Git or Hyperledger Fabric are centralized, they’re both distributed.
Just because it’s for specialized non-financial related tasks using customizable specialized consensus mechanisms and often distributed only within a select few instead of being a big inefficient permissionless PoW/PoS craptocurrency blockchain with a bunch of clowns waisting energy mining nonsense doesn’t make it any less of a blockchain with smartcontacts and the works.
with fancy buzzwords
That’s literally just all blockchain technology ever.
“Just blast them with buzzwords they don’t understand to distract from how fundamentally flawed our shit is and FOMO the shit out of them then rug pull every last dime from them” - NFTs.
Git doesn’t need consensus mechanisms because it’s “permissioned”, like Hyperledger. All actors are known and given permission by some entity to contribute.
You can’t contribute to the Linux kernel unless your changes have been approved by someone trusted with permission. You cannot contribute to whatever Walmart is doing, because you haven’t acquired permission to do so.
And?
Hyperledger Fabric still uses a consensus mechanism, and I promise you Walmart uses one. You can’t trust China with food safety.
Permission is given out to various suppliers with various levels of trust.
“Permissioned” in the context of Hyperledger Fabric just means all participants are known entities with identities managed by a Membership Service Provider (MSP), which is likely Walmart in this case and have access control governed by policies ensuring that only authorized actors can interact with the network and its resources. It doesn’t mean that a consensus mechanism isn’t used or needed.
Shit, without using GPG and SSH to sign commits and outside identity verification mechanisms, you run the risk of git identity fraud.
In what way can blockchain ensure food safety? Just because participants use proof of work or whatever doesn’t mean the input data is more truthful. The oracle problem is a thing.
By providing transparency, auditability, and traceability throughout the food supply chain.
Or in other words it prevents fraud via a tamper-proof system for data collection and monitoring. If the input data is falsified and people to get sick, it’s just a matter of plugging in the QR code for the contaminated product and within seconds you know the identity of the participant who authored the product and where it came from. The identities of all participants are already known before hand by the Membership Service Provider.
Think of it like as if someone signed a malicious commit with their GPG key containing their name and address but with additional tamper-proofing pushed to an immutable repo, it’s not going to be very hard to trace back and slap a fine on whoever is responsible; effectively greatly reducing the Oracle problem.
This is how tech people often think because they don’t understand economics and the value bitcoin provides. Bitcoin was distributed fairly, is stable, is scarce, and most importantly, is decentralized. Probably all “programmable” shitcoins have zero of those properties and the market reflects that.
I don’t even know where to begin. Btc was distrubuted as fairly as anything else, it’s not as stable as since we have stablecoins, scarcity means nothing, it’s decentralised as much as anything else.
Must I repeat that it just exists? You can’t do anything with it. It’s like comparing a pretty rock to a computer. Today all what btc does is pollute.
So you decide what is fair and what not? Its so fairly distributed now, isn’t it?
Its stable because it’s issued on a schedule? Lol? Wtf? And why would this be a benefit? This is a joke!
You don’t understand bitcoin and crypto. Especially the incentive part needed to run it.
Is vitalik the boss of eth? Give me a break. You arguments are weak af.
Pollution baby. Btc is like there just because it was first. There is nothing there.
Usd is not programmable. You are completely missing the point, you don’t understand what it’s about. Which is not surprising. Btc is boring polluted. Yeah ok it exists. Nobody that works in crypto cares about btc. It’s for investment companies, hedge funds and people in suits. And most of it will end up locked in smart contracts on other chains lol.
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
Does it though? Because to me the fact that the largest cryptos have had several forks is proof that no, in fact, the magic of crypto can’t coordinate people. People coordinate people and then decide what to do with the technology.
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.
That’s kind of epic, though, I’m pretty sure HRT is cheaper on the black market instead of going through your medical provider, and I need steroids in bulk so I can hulk out and become jacked.
I mean… I know there are some backwards countries like the US where you don’t have access to safe HRT, but would you really roll the dice and get some random injectable shit from the dark web…? I mean…
Provided you’re willing to learn enough to verify and test it yourself, I suppose. That being foisted onto the consumer is kind of problematic, but it’s not really the fault of the dark web provider I would say as much as the corrupt medical industry driving people to do that in the first place. In any case I still think it’s kind of a good band-aid that’s risen up to fill the gap, even if the situation as a whole is shitty.
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.
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.
I find the actual technology very interesting. At one point I wanted to create a distributed research journal, and I spent some time trying to develop a trustless, immutable ledger that didn’t have the high overhead that most blockchains have for proof of work. It was extremely cool, but nobody gives a shit unless it has coins lol
I look forward to 20 years from now when it gets resurrected and used for interesting things that don’t involve cryptocurrency.
I remember reading a few years ago that the US postal service was looking into using it for voting. I haven’t seen anything about it since, but it did peak my interest. I’d love to see it used for research if possible, too, but then I can barely understand these decentralized social media platforms so my opinion isn’t worth much with tech
That, to me, seems like an ideal use case. My only reservation is that I think it would be bungled in implementation, then pushed without enough testing and validation, then hacked due to the bungled implementation, and then rejected forever because it was hacked once lol
This makes them perfect for ledgers or transaction networks.
It doesn’t scale well, so it generally works best for ledgers of relatively small scale. Anything that might need to go beyond that small scale will run into technical/performance issues.
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
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.
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?
i think its the part where he said banks, the same collection of people who supported enron and coached them on how to effectively get away with extracting billions from several states and the stock market while killing people…dont want his money.
when a bank doesnt want your money you reallll shady
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.
All I can say is that this protects companies from homebrew “infractions” on their software copyright by making it difficult to install un-attested firmware updates.
I’m not even confident in that summary. What does this do?
Company A submits a new device for certification signed by their private key.
Company B certifies the device signed by their private key.
Company C on boards a device for an end-user and is confident it came from Company A and has been verified by Company B since the device has a certificate that can be verified from Companies A and B.
Yes it prevents home brew (though you can do home brew by replacing Company C with your own controller), but it also prevents knock offs.
When this information is distributed (like Lemmy federation), between instances, one has a degree of assurances all these records originated from the signer.
While the ledger part is not required, it provides a nice audit trail for the companies who do not trust each other enough without the transparency. Sure a central authority like the ESRB could do the same, but we could also all be on Reddit and not Lemmy…
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.
The only selling point of blockchain is that it’s trustless. This becomes a less-useful property when it comes to things in the real world, as you tend to need to trust at least one party.
For example, anything they achieved there with blockchain, they could have achieved with a simple government-run web service and a traditional database.
Except it’s not though. Because you have to trust the majority, hence why you’ve had forks like Bitcoin Cash. Because those people wanted to trust someone else. “trustless” is just a buzzword, like everything else with 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.
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 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.
Yes. Clawback might be executed by having some entity or system of trust that is able to reverse a transaction by creating and posting the opposite of the faulty transaction. This is not built in to the current BTC.
Its a good concept, but it violates other concepts of the blockchain and would mean implementing a central authority with the power to force a transaction. Try telling a cryptobro to use a coin with a central bank and imagine the reaction you’d get.
At least with the way the regular banking system is set up, you can get a court order to enforce a correction without needing the consent of all parties, which is useful for fraud, theft, and even probate cases when one party is deceased and can no longer consent to a transaction. There are enough problems with our system to write an entire library of books ON TOP OF the library that already exists, but this feature is one of the few benefits.
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).
Add comment