There are several oversimplifications to watch out, but still interesting.
Very nice talk!
I would have argued it solved a distributed data problem, but DHTs solved that and much like DHTs, the Blockchain is painfully slow.
DHT and blockchain solve different problems. Blockchain are usefully when you need to come to consensus on the ordering for events.
Removed by mod
You could, scuttlebutt builds a social network without domains and optionally uses a DHT
Does blockchain solve the double-spending problem? Can crypto currencies help devs (and possibly other creators) to monetize apps and other products?
I agree that blockchain is a solution to only a few problems, but can’t this be said about all technologies?
The author seems to implicitly suggest to keep up the status quo and ignores the potential of a new tech (yes, there is also much empty hype around). Blockchain may or may not live up its potential, but this depends on the decision we as humans make rather than on the technology imho.
I don’t know what to do with this article. It’s just a sequence os simplified examples. But that’s just my two cents.
Databases solve nearly every storage problem, there isn’t many problems in computer science where they don’t apply.
Blockchains solve only one tiny problem: the double spend problem, or when you need data to show an ownership history, and you specifically don’t want to rely on a central authority. Its a strange edge case that doesn’t even exist for most money, credit, or transactions today.
You cant build a cryptocurrency without blockchain. So ita certainly more than a strange edge case.
I agree; but what @dessalines@lemmy.ml says still holds true I think. Most transaction should probably use layer 2 solutions such as lightning network and only fall back to the blockchain in cases for dispute or settlement which should be a rather infrequent event compared to transacting.
Lightning network is a scam.
ok, well then replace lightning with payment channels in general then. Why is lightning a scam?
Because you have to trust some huge, centralized nodes which can steal your money, or charge extra fees. So basically a bank.
This article hardly looks at trying to solve problems and even suggests that banks are safe.
Git essentially uses a “blockchain” to store commits =/
It doesn’t try to replace trust with computation, which is a crucial difference.
what do you mean by that?
Nothing in Git requires reversing hashes (which requires a lot of computing power), there’s only forward computation (much cheaper), and there isn’t any other method of establishing global consensus either (like proof of stake). This means no one needs an expensive rig to create git commits and fork whole repos, but on the other hand the hashes only prove the integrity of one set of commits; there is no global consensus on any repo and there has to be some sort of access control to prevent someone from force-pushing or replacing whole histories, central maintainers to decide what gets merged, etc. At best, to check if the upstream did something fishy, a mirror can be compared to another, or to a local copy.
edit: or perhaps, it wouldn’t be technically incorrect to call a git repo a blockchain, as the distributed global consensus without human maintainers may not be part of the strict definition, but this seems pretty anachronistic and pointlessly confusing to me.
Yes, it doesn’t have any method for distributed global consensus. Instead, everyone gets to decide what they think the “tip” should be. Signed commits can give you insight into what others think it should be, though.
If I fork bitcoin and and replace proof-of-work with signed blocks, I would argue that its still a blockchain, just not decentralized. This would still be useful because others could see if I tried to re-write history.
I think of a blockchain, simply as a chain of blocks where each block contains a hash of its contents + the previous blocks hash. So, their primary feature is being an append-only tamper-evident database.
There’s only one good use-case I can imagine for blockchain:
Hospitals sharing data.
At least in Canada, your allergies, sensitivities, or any information about you is only at a single hospital unless you visit another and give them that info yourself. This obviously isn’t ideal, because if you’re in another city and are in a position where you cannot communicate that info when you go to the hospital, things could end up poorly.
What would be really great is if the hospitals could be on their own private blockchain, with each facility acting as a node on the chain. The redundancy of the information and constant sync across all nodes actually makes sense here, and the hospitals would all be updated with the latest information that they receive from one another.
Here in Brazil, this system exists, but without a blockchain, and it works very well. It tracks vaccinations, surgeries, when you went to a hospital or a basic health unit (it’s like a mini hospital for check-ups, vaccination and less severe stuff), etc.
I went to a doctor recently (that I never went before) and he started asking things like “so you broke your arm on 2003? Interesting”.
So I would say that blockchain might not help in that area either haha.
yeah there’s not really a need that it fulfills that something already existing doesn’t already do better lol
What dies “better” mean? If everything is stored on a single server owned by this one company in Mountain View or so, is it better then?
the problem with that argument is that you’re implying that blockchain maintainers are infallible which we know is also not true
it’s the issue of reinventing the wheel. Do we have a solution that is more energy efficient and affordable for the average user to participate in? yes.
Nothing and no one is ever infallible. What I say is that the web as we know it is broken in that it has become a walled garden controllled by a few companies. And, yes, a lot of web3 doesn’t appear to change that, it’s just old wine in new bottles. We needed to discuss alternatives to different use case (payment and currency systems, how we monetize apps and other products, data hosting and sharing,. …). Energy efficiency and affordability are important issues, but I want to have choice and don’t want to become dependent on 5 or so companies in whatever I do. If that means that I have to pay, I’d be fine with that.
you are literally on a federated platform that does not use blockchain. this seems like the resolution to that issue
Yes, that’s one solution for a specific use case (-:
That use case has nothing to do with a blockchain, just private sharing / syncing of data. That’s easily done via webservers and databases, no need for a distributed transfer of ownership ledger.
see my below comment vv
Blockchain is a really cool technology that helps to solve some problems. But it has been hyped up beyond it’s real usefullness.
