Lets talk about blockchains(cmdli.dev)
cmdli.dev
Lets talk about blockchains
https://cmdli.dev/blog/blockchain/
309 comments
I think, it's not needed in a technical sense, but in a business sense.
Take IPFS, for example.
Decentralized hosting without a blockchain. Pretty nifty!
Now, how do you make sure your stuff stays on the network in a similar decentralized way?
Pinning it in your own node and paying pinning services is still centralized, Filecoin, on the other hand, is not.
Take IPFS, for example.
Decentralized hosting without a blockchain. Pretty nifty!
Now, how do you make sure your stuff stays on the network in a similar decentralized way?
Pinning it in your own node and paying pinning services is still centralized, Filecoin, on the other hand, is not.
There's nothing in Filecoin to ensure that your data is stored by a reputable party. Even if you store on ten replicas, they could all be the same lowest bidder in the same datacenter.
So just make sure you're using more than one region?
And they do have a reputation system.
And they do have a reputation system.
Region isn't provable, unless I'm missing some major fundamental advance in FileCoin.
There is a widening gulf in technology between what could or
should be built and what is being done.
That's not new. There are mountains of awful software still being used. I just got done spending hours setting up a Windows VM for a student they needed because of an arbitrary requirement at their school.
NIST's Blockchain Technology Overview is a good explainer:
* https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/nistir/8202/final
See especially Figure 6 ("p. 42", 53 of the PDF), which is a flow chart to help you decide on whether blockchain may match one's use case. Extracted:
* https://imgur.com/a/RlUj9Ed
Generally you need the conditions of needing both (i) append-only log and (ii) distributed/decentralized before considering blockchain 'technology'.
* https://csrc.nist.gov/publications/detail/nistir/8202/final
See especially Figure 6 ("p. 42", 53 of the PDF), which is a flow chart to help you decide on whether blockchain may match one's use case. Extracted:
* https://imgur.com/a/RlUj9Ed
Generally you need the conditions of needing both (i) append-only log and (ii) distributed/decentralized before considering blockchain 'technology'.
That’s a nice flowchart. Also, blockchains are only applicable when you don’t know anyone you trust to run your infrastructure. I don’t think this is often true in practice.
Blockchains are also only needed in situations where you need a single, global source of truth. Ie, where eventual consistency / gossip networks wouldn’t be good enough. So blockchains are needed to avoid the double spend problem, but plenty of real world software can get on just fine without a single central ledger. (Eg scuttlebutt, CRDTs, etc).
Blockchains are also only needed in situations where you need a single, global source of truth. Ie, where eventual consistency / gossip networks wouldn’t be good enough. So blockchains are needed to avoid the double spend problem, but plenty of real world software can get on just fine without a single central ledger. (Eg scuttlebutt, CRDTs, etc).
One of the more under-appreciated aspects of blockchains is how they've made public key encryption more accessible to mainstream users. For the first time in history, millions of people have setup and maintain custody of their own key pairs. These users have learned the importance of securing those keys and have a convenient way to sign or verify signatures using their crypto wallets.
Not everything needs a blockchain, but consumer tools for generating and verifying cryptographic signatures would have never reached the same level of adoption as they have w/o the incentives that blockchains provide.
Not everything needs a blockchain, but consumer tools for generating and verifying cryptographic signatures would have never reached the same level of adoption as they have w/o the incentives that blockchains provide.
I would be surprised if "millions" actually handle their keys themselves.
None of the crypto 'investors' I know personally do that, instead just use a trading platform, functionally identical to any traditional trading platform.
None of the crypto 'investors' I know personally do that, instead just use a trading platform, functionally identical to any traditional trading platform.
https://www.google.com/search?q=metamask+usage+numbers
There are now 21 million monthly active users of Metamask, which is a 38-times increase from 2020, according to Metamask statistics. Metamask is now the easiest way for people around the world to interact with unique applications that use web3. There are currently 3700 applications that use web3. Mar 27, 2022
There are now 21 million monthly active users of Metamask, which is a 38-times increase from 2020, according to Metamask statistics. Metamask is now the easiest way for people around the world to interact with unique applications that use web3. There are currently 3700 applications that use web3. Mar 27, 2022
> I would be surprised if "millions" actually handle their keys themselves.
I think Ledger, the french company, sold millions and millions of hardware wallets. And with these you absolutely have to handle the keys yourself (well, the keys are "hidden" behind a "seed", which is list of 12, 18 or usually 24 words chosen randomly, with a checksum in the last work, among a dictionary of 2048 words).
That's millions of people basically having a 256 bits integer on paper (or metal sheet etc.) that never ever made it to anything else but a HSM.
That's quite an achievement I think.
And Ledger ain't the only player in the space.
Now of course there are fuckups. Some people are losing their list of 24 words, for example.
But it's still quite something.
I think Ledger, the french company, sold millions and millions of hardware wallets. And with these you absolutely have to handle the keys yourself (well, the keys are "hidden" behind a "seed", which is list of 12, 18 or usually 24 words chosen randomly, with a checksum in the last work, among a dictionary of 2048 words).
That's millions of people basically having a 256 bits integer on paper (or metal sheet etc.) that never ever made it to anything else but a HSM.
That's quite an achievement I think.
And Ledger ain't the only player in the space.
Now of course there are fuckups. Some people are losing their list of 24 words, for example.
But it's still quite something.
The people I know who are into crypto (not many) maintain custody of their keys.
In 2005, Mexico implemented the "FIEL" (Firma Electronica Avanzada or Advanced Electronic Signature) [1], which is uses PKI assigning a public/private keypair to each individuals for taxes purposes (SAT, the Mexican IRS implemented it then).
Now, more than 50 million people in Mexico have generated their "eFirma" public/private keypair and use it every year to pay their taxes. It is also being actively used as a legally binding digital signature.
[1] http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/cys/v23n2/1405-5546-cys-23-02-4...
Now, more than 50 million people in Mexico have generated their "eFirma" public/private keypair and use it every year to pay their taxes. It is also being actively used as a legally binding digital signature.
[1] http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/cys/v23n2/1405-5546-cys-23-02-4...
[deleted]
This.
It's a bit like Rust's borrow checker. Not everyone needs it, but an ecosystem where it's the default for building anything has a competitive advantage at large.
Web3 uses public key cryptography by default, which is a tremendous advantage over ecosystems that need to add it later.
In times of "fake news", this alone could be a killer feature, even without the money.
It's a bit like Rust's borrow checker. Not everyone needs it, but an ecosystem where it's the default for building anything has a competitive advantage at large.
Web3 uses public key cryptography by default, which is a tremendous advantage over ecosystems that need to add it later.
In times of "fake news", this alone could be a killer feature, even without the money.
I'd argue that PoS/PoW have nothing to do with the blockchain concept, and instead are a way of building virtual currencies on top of it. The easiest way (for me) of thinking of a blockchain is a distributed merkle tree (or a patricia trie, if you're into ethereum or whatever), with a consensus mechanism. That's it. What you put there is your own responsability - so if you decide to create a virtual currency and either reward work or reward possession, its up to you - but that's on top of the "blockchain" concept.
And I've actually came across some pretty valid use cases - one good example is that blockchain could be used to enhance resiliency on systems like certificate transparency - that are already a centralized, versioned sparse merkle tree.
Totally disagree. The thing that was really novel about blockchain was its distributed consensus mechanism, even in the face of bad actors. Without that, just having, say, a cryptographically signed list of transactions really isn't new.
The novel thing was a consensus mechanism that is itself permissionless in the sense that anyone can contribute to it. There is no procedure for becoming whitelisted to mine. You just mine.
If there were such a permission scheme, such as in Facebook's now likely defunct cryptocurrency idea, you would not need proof of work. You'd just have a list of authorized signers of new blocks and if someone does something bad you kick them off the list. This is basically how the web PKI system works with browser certificate whitelists.
Lots of cryptocurrency critics over-argue their case by denying that this was a novel innovation, but yes it was novel. It has big downsides but it works. Personally my big issue with crypto other than the energy waste is that the cryptocurrency ecosystem itself is toxic and full of scams and other trash.
If there were such a permission scheme, such as in Facebook's now likely defunct cryptocurrency idea, you would not need proof of work. You'd just have a list of authorized signers of new blocks and if someone does something bad you kick them off the list. This is basically how the web PKI system works with browser certificate whitelists.
Lots of cryptocurrency critics over-argue their case by denying that this was a novel innovation, but yes it was novel. It has big downsides but it works. Personally my big issue with crypto other than the energy waste is that the cryptocurrency ecosystem itself is toxic and full of scams and other trash.
"You'd just have a list of authorized signers of new blocks and if someone does something bad you kick them off the list."
Are you saying that the incentives provided for successfully mining a block in crypto's isn't necessary to their security? I can't think of a single expert that agrees, or an example in the space of that working. Block reward is typically thought of as a tradeoff between security and inflation.
Are you saying that the incentives provided for successfully mining a block in crypto's isn't necessary to their security? I can't think of a single expert that agrees, or an example in the space of that working. Block reward is typically thought of as a tradeoff between security and inflation.
Yeah.
A distributed consensus mechanism really isn't new, either. In fact, some mechanisms are as old as merkle trees. And even within the realm of consensus mechanisms, using BFT (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault) to achieve consensus is basically an 80's technology with a new spin on it. BFT isn't magical and brings its own set of problems - the most common is the relative simplicity of "majority" attacks.
A lot of the research on Distributed Ledger Technologies (blockchain is an example of a data structure that is a DLT) is in playing with game theory, voting schemes and incentives.
It's a really interesting space to research for economists or political scientists. It's also a lever to turn government, social, financial and other systems into software.
All that to say, yes, PoW and PoS are not necessarily tied to blockchains or DLTs.
You can use PoW as a sort of captcha, for example. If it costs a little bit of CPU to submit a request to a website it's not a big deal for a human. However, if you're running a bot-net suddenly it starts to hurt!
It's a really interesting space to research for economists or political scientists. It's also a lever to turn government, social, financial and other systems into software.
All that to say, yes, PoW and PoS are not necessarily tied to blockchains or DLTs.
You can use PoW as a sort of captcha, for example. If it costs a little bit of CPU to submit a request to a website it's not a big deal for a human. However, if you're running a bot-net suddenly it starts to hurt!
> You can use PoW as a sort of captcha, for example. If it costs a little bit of CPU to submit a request to a website it's not a big deal for a human. However, if you're running a bot-net suddenly it starts to hurt!
That's exactly what HashCash was conceived to do (to fight email spam). It was a neat predecessor to Bitcoin.
That's exactly what HashCash was conceived to do (to fight email spam). It was a neat predecessor to Bitcoin.
botnet operators rarely pay for the electricity or hardware of their botnet. why would CPU usage hurt them ?
Depending on what the Botnet is trying to achieve, CPU can be “expensive” in a time sense. If you are doing a credential stuffing attack with something like a COMB dump, then every cycle counts because you have a ton of creds to check.
A lot of them are using budget VPS services, or even Amazon/Google/Microsoft cloud services.
True, it won't solve the problem of malware botnets, but PoW or PoBandwidth schemes can make it too expensive to run botnets on cloud services so the only place left to go is illegal botnets.
True, it won't solve the problem of malware botnets, but PoW or PoBandwidth schemes can make it too expensive to run botnets on cloud services so the only place left to go is illegal botnets.
Isn’t this just bcrypt?
Almost. PoW allows the entity validating the work to determine just how much work it thinks is appropriate at the moment of authorization, whereas the number of hashing rounds for bcrypt is determined at the time the secret is stored.
So if I lock up a secret with bcrypt today and require 100k rounds of hashing, it will still require 100k rounds of hashing to unlock for any brute force attempt of the ciphertext for the rest of time. A server (or blockchain network) could evaluate a PoW submission 50 years from now and determine that difficulty should be raised to 100T rounds instead of 100k rounds.
So if I lock up a secret with bcrypt today and require 100k rounds of hashing, it will still require 100k rounds of hashing to unlock for any brute force attempt of the ciphertext for the rest of time. A server (or blockchain network) could evaluate a PoW submission 50 years from now and determine that difficulty should be raised to 100T rounds instead of 100k rounds.
PoS/PoW are decentralized concensus protocols; they could have used alternate data structures but practically something like a log-structured database with cryptographic hashed for integrity is the only thing that makes sense to reach consensus on, so cryptographic-tree structures that existed for decades were the logical choice and the concepts got entangled in people's minds. Cryptocurrency doesn't require decentralized consensus (multi-witness would work just about as well). Merkle trees don't need consensus; IPFS works just fine with content-addressed naming.
Blockchains are unique in their design to be self-sustaining decentralized cryptocurrencies; the self-sustaining part is what, in my mind, distinguishes them from the other technologies which rely on external incentives to keep them running.
Blockchains are unique in their design to be self-sustaining decentralized cryptocurrencies; the self-sustaining part is what, in my mind, distinguishes them from the other technologies which rely on external incentives to keep them running.
I think there is a common conflation of distributed and decentralized concepts; Many (most?) distributed systems require a consensus mechanism to operate (as they require coordination/state), but many decentralized(most?) systems don't, as each node operates independently and without a transitive state. As such, I have some difficulty in seeing PoS/PoW as "decentralized" (in a decentralized system, multiple different "end states" may coexist without being a problem), but rather more of a reputation model as a way to solve BFT. And BFT consensus mechanisms are - in my opinion - only one of several possible mechanisms, because (again, imo) "blockchain" and "public blockchain" make different assumptions on the underlying implementation.
Is PoS actually decentralized?
It depends on which PoS algorithm you look at, but some of them are generally considered to be as "decentralized" as PoW in terms of the security properties they give to their network under adversarial conditions.
Is PoW actually decentralized? It's more like multi-witness because miners aren't able to see the block they're working on and validate it before submitting back to the pool operator and they can only trust the pool to keep paying out rewards through non-blockchain means.
In ideal worlds as designed for PoW and PoS everyone has roughly an equal stake and equal incentives. Reality differs.
In ideal worlds as designed for PoW and PoS everyone has roughly an equal stake and equal incentives. Reality differs.
The consensus mechanism depends on the existence of the currency as a reward. It financially incentivizes mining and choosing of the "correct" fork.
"this specific consensus mechanism". There are plenty of them, that don't require monopoly money.
PoW/PoS are just consensus mechanisms. Otherwise I agree that a blockchain is a Merkle tree with a (distributed) consensus mechanism. I'd tend to say that only distributed consensus mechanisms count as blockchains (and thus "permissioned" blockchains aren't true blockchains), but that's nitpicking.
A basic question I have is: what stops someone from re-writing history? With Bitcoin, it's the fact that it would be computationally hard. By the time you were able to "mine" more, the network has moved on. If we're talking about a private blockchain (like I see some companies pushing), what's stopping a malicious actor from simply recomputing on new data?
IBM talks about private blockchains, but it kinda seems like without spending a lot of computing power to make it infeasible to re-compute, you're relying on trusting that people won't. If I control all the machines in the private blockchain and the cost to compute the hashes is low, presumably I could replace nodes that I want to remove or alter and then just recompute.
For example, let's say that I'm trying to create an immutable ledger of emails sent for compliance purposes and I have 10,000 emails. Later, I want to hide 5 emails sent and alter 5 email's contents. I replace the remove/alter the nodes and then just re-compute the chain storing the new version of the chain on the servers I control. I then tell regulators that those emails never existed and we have the immutable block chain to prove it!
Even if a blockchain is public, what is protecting against someone disputing history? If it were computationally cheap, I could come up with a longer chain than the current Bitcoin chain with certain transactions altered to favor me. The reason I can't do that is because the proof-of-work makes it infeasible for me to re-compute a block before the network has already put a new block on the chain (presuming I control less than 51% of the compute power in the network). To recompute 10 blocks, I'd need to control an overwhelming majority of the compute power in the network.
But if the data is important and we're not giving people a big reward for mining the chain, it seems like it would be vulnerable to alteration. Sure, you could say "I saw the chain with 1,000 links and then I saw the chain with 1,100 links, but this new chain disagrees with some of the original 1,000 I had. Someone is doing something sketchy, but is it the first person trying to rewrite history and not being able to mine fast enough or is the second person rewriting history and has enough compute power to become the longest chain?" Again, with Bitcoin this isn't such a problem because PoW makes it infeasible to re-compute that stuff. However, if we're talking about a blockchain that isn't secured by PoW (or PoS), what is preventing that?
If I want to create a public ledger of all my shipments with blockchain and there are 10-50 shipments per day at various unknown times, it seems insecure. I put up a piece of shipment data to be added, and then it gets added to the chain. That's the good scenario. Now I want to rewrite history so I go back and re-compute some stuff and then for the next 20 shipments I privately compute the signatures before broadcasting to the network so that I'll have a chain 20 longer than everyone else which will replace the old chain (and with it the data I'm looking to alter).
I could just be missing a piece that makes this comment void, but it's always seemed like Bitcoin's resistance to history-rewriting is the PoW. Without that, I could simply re-compute the history, create a longer chain, and replace the current chain. Yes?
IBM talks about private blockchains, but it kinda seems like without spending a lot of computing power to make it infeasible to re-compute, you're relying on trusting that people won't. If I control all the machines in the private blockchain and the cost to compute the hashes is low, presumably I could replace nodes that I want to remove or alter and then just recompute.
For example, let's say that I'm trying to create an immutable ledger of emails sent for compliance purposes and I have 10,000 emails. Later, I want to hide 5 emails sent and alter 5 email's contents. I replace the remove/alter the nodes and then just re-compute the chain storing the new version of the chain on the servers I control. I then tell regulators that those emails never existed and we have the immutable block chain to prove it!
Even if a blockchain is public, what is protecting against someone disputing history? If it were computationally cheap, I could come up with a longer chain than the current Bitcoin chain with certain transactions altered to favor me. The reason I can't do that is because the proof-of-work makes it infeasible for me to re-compute a block before the network has already put a new block on the chain (presuming I control less than 51% of the compute power in the network). To recompute 10 blocks, I'd need to control an overwhelming majority of the compute power in the network.
But if the data is important and we're not giving people a big reward for mining the chain, it seems like it would be vulnerable to alteration. Sure, you could say "I saw the chain with 1,000 links and then I saw the chain with 1,100 links, but this new chain disagrees with some of the original 1,000 I had. Someone is doing something sketchy, but is it the first person trying to rewrite history and not being able to mine fast enough or is the second person rewriting history and has enough compute power to become the longest chain?" Again, with Bitcoin this isn't such a problem because PoW makes it infeasible to re-compute that stuff. However, if we're talking about a blockchain that isn't secured by PoW (or PoS), what is preventing that?
If I want to create a public ledger of all my shipments with blockchain and there are 10-50 shipments per day at various unknown times, it seems insecure. I put up a piece of shipment data to be added, and then it gets added to the chain. That's the good scenario. Now I want to rewrite history so I go back and re-compute some stuff and then for the next 20 shipments I privately compute the signatures before broadcasting to the network so that I'll have a chain 20 longer than everyone else which will replace the old chain (and with it the data I'm looking to alter).
I could just be missing a piece that makes this comment void, but it's always seemed like Bitcoin's resistance to history-rewriting is the PoW. Without that, I could simply re-compute the history, create a longer chain, and replace the current chain. Yes?
I think you may be missing the proposed use case of private blockchains. They aren't for storing data within a single organization on trusted computers controlled by that organization. They are for sharing data across a limited consortium of organizations who don't trust the integrity of each others' computing platforms.
Also, it's not clear to me whether you're asking about PoS security too, but if so, the reason one person can't go back and rewrite a bunch of it is because the right to create blocks is spread out randomly across the entire active set of stakers. So if an attacker only controls a small fraction of the total stake, then their signature would only be valid in building a small fraction of the chain they would need.
Also, it's not clear to me whether you're asking about PoS security too, but if so, the reason one person can't go back and rewrite a bunch of it is because the right to create blocks is spread out randomly across the entire active set of stakers. So if an attacker only controls a small fraction of the total stake, then their signature would only be valid in building a small fraction of the chain they would need.
In your scenario, the other members in the chain would trivially detect your modification because they have a record of what you said before. Then they decide to kick you out of the club and/or sue you for breach on contract.
> And I've actually came across some pretty valid use cases
Pics or didn't happen.
Pics or didn't happen.
Please don't post unsubstantive comments or flamebait. Perhaps you don't owe the blockchain better, but you owe this community better if you're participating in it.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
This is not a constructive response (in terms of HN commenting guidelines), especially given that the parent provided concrete examples. If you disagree with their examples, or if you think that the cons outweigh the pros, a better approach next time would be stating that and making your counterargument.
The effort we invest to encourage thoughtful dialogue is paid back in the long run by keeping the quality of discourse high(er) and making less work for dang.
The effort we invest to encourage thoughtful dialogue is paid back in the long run by keeping the quality of discourse high(er) and making less work for dang.
We have had a myriad attempts at decentralized (and/or federated) identity and all of them failed because at the end of the day MySpace^W Facebook/Apple/Google/Whatever-todays-WWW-giant-is prefers to be at the center of your online identity, not at the periphery.
This has been one of the most infuriating things about the internet maturing or whatever it's doing. All the big players trying centralize and tie all of your accounts to you. I've been rather hesitantly linking my steam/game/publisher accounts with twitch for in game loot, but I really hate doing it.
What if they decide to ban me for some reason? Do I get banned from all of them?
Centralization is only good for the center, not the constituents.
What if they decide to ban me for some reason? Do I get banned from all of them?
Centralization is only good for the center, not the constituents.
> This has been one of the most infuriating things about the internet maturing or whatever it's doing. All the big players trying centralize and tie all of your accounts to you. I've been rather hesitantly linking my steam/game/publisher accounts with twitch for in game loot, but I really hate doing it.
They bought you for in-game loot. Time to check your own personal definition of "hate".
I'm being mean because I feel that for those of us who "hate" something, we need to act on that feeling and accept the consequences. This seems the only way to change (yes, I know it's mostly insignificant in the face of the millions of counter-cases). If you give in the craving, there's no chance at all. You gotta be in it to win it.
They bought you for in-game loot. Time to check your own personal definition of "hate".
I'm being mean because I feel that for those of us who "hate" something, we need to act on that feeling and accept the consequences. This seems the only way to change (yes, I know it's mostly insignificant in the face of the millions of counter-cases). If you give in the craving, there's no chance at all. You gotta be in it to win it.
You're not wrong. But in one very recent case for "watching" a streamer for 4 hours I got early access to a fairly fun and polished game (Overwatch 2).
I didn't have to pay USD for it, and now I have what is essentially a whole online pvp game to play with new stuff. Since I'm not one of the privileged few streamers that were just given access, that was the price to get into a game that one of the only friends whose gaming tastes overlap with mine.
I just wish there was more trustbusting going on. Letting large companies gobble up all the smaller ones is only good for the shareholders. Not the customers, not the employees, and definitely not taxpayers.
I didn't have to pay USD for it, and now I have what is essentially a whole online pvp game to play with new stuff. Since I'm not one of the privileged few streamers that were just given access, that was the price to get into a game that one of the only friends whose gaming tastes overlap with mine.
I just wish there was more trustbusting going on. Letting large companies gobble up all the smaller ones is only good for the shareholders. Not the customers, not the employees, and definitely not taxpayers.
I'm sad I missed OpenID. Would've been fun to be able to set up my own identity provider for a while until websites would eventually stop supporting it.
I didn't miss the OpenID days. Basically everyone was a OpenID provider (i.e. all of them offered to handle your accounts for you), but no one was an OpenID consumer. Even at its heyday, I don't remember any single service where I could login with my OpenID except for the websites I made.
We let them own it. But we don't have to let them keep it forever. It was always a choice, but we didn't place enough importance on it, so we chose badly. Now that we understand how important it is we need to redecide, and own identity ourselves.
I don't know about "failed"... if you use a different identity for each different site it seems that your identity is pretty decentralised.
Blockchain is designed to avoid double spending without a central authority. If you're not trying to avoid double spending, or if you are happy to have a central authority, you don't need blockchain.
Would be exciting to find an alternative system that can accomplish the same thing
Would be exciting to find an alternative system that can accomplish the same thing
Directed Acyclic Graphs (DAGs) with BFT Consensus, aka hashgraphs, also solve double spending and have some nifty features blockchains don't have like paralelizability and no need for a "block time" constraint.
Also you could in theory have tokens without a blockchain. That's essentially the way modern fiat works.
>Why aren't we logging into everywhere with public keys, if the technology is so old? Well, it's not because we didn't have blockchain technology before, but because decentralized identity was not the goal before.
Let's not gloss over that key management is a hard problem, even for technical people, and that's a major reason this has not been particularly practical. FWIW this is also a problem for most blockchain based technologies.
Let's not gloss over that key management is a hard problem, even for technical people, and that's a major reason this has not been particularly practical. FWIW this is also a problem for most blockchain based technologies.
Yeah, there's a real benefit to identifying myself with an account tied to a big company: they can reset my password if I forget it. (Or if my laptop gets stolen and it turns out my backup is corrupted, for the passwordless private key case. And assuming widespread use of backups is already quite the reach.)
Any technology that makes this impossible is not going to get mass-adoption.
Any technology that makes this impossible is not going to get mass-adoption.
This is a pretty shallow dismissal.
The ideas argued against here haven't been popular in the crypto world since ~2018.
Nobody thinks you need a blockchain to sign into a website. When people talk about web3 based decentralized identity, they are usually talking about an identity that is coupled to an on-chain asset (NFT, position in a pool, etc). That does "require" blockchains for the reasons explained in the first few paragraphs of this article.
I put "require" in quotes because you could definitely build this stuff without a blockchain. But nothing like that will ever become widely adopted. It's not about "requiring" a blockchain in the sense of a necessary condition. It's about blockchains enabling things in a way that they are otherwise unlikely to be enabled.
The ideas argued against here haven't been popular in the crypto world since ~2018.
Nobody thinks you need a blockchain to sign into a website. When people talk about web3 based decentralized identity, they are usually talking about an identity that is coupled to an on-chain asset (NFT, position in a pool, etc). That does "require" blockchains for the reasons explained in the first few paragraphs of this article.
I put "require" in quotes because you could definitely build this stuff without a blockchain. But nothing like that will ever become widely adopted. It's not about "requiring" a blockchain in the sense of a necessary condition. It's about blockchains enabling things in a way that they are otherwise unlikely to be enabled.
> enabling things in a way that they are otherwise unlikely to be enabled
Why were these things unlikely to be enabled in the first place? Maybe it wasn't worth the hassle (even though it is free)? Maybe people couldn't agree on one solution (even though there are a 1000 blockchains with their mutually incompatible systems)?
Or more cynically, maybe no one needed "worse SSO" in the first place and this is just attempt #245 to find a problem for our favourite solution.
Why were these things unlikely to be enabled in the first place? Maybe it wasn't worth the hassle (even though it is free)? Maybe people couldn't agree on one solution (even though there are a 1000 blockchains with their mutually incompatible systems)?
Or more cynically, maybe no one needed "worse SSO" in the first place and this is just attempt #245 to find a problem for our favourite solution.
Obligatory: https://cryptologie.net/article/555/my-friends-always-ask-me...
The simplest abstraction is to see cryptocurrency / blockchain / distributed ledger technology as a database running on a single computer. Everybody can access this database and there’s some simple logic that allows you to debit your account and credit someone else’s account. The computer has a queue to make sure transactions are processed in order.
Blockchains that support smart contracts allow for people to install programs to that computer, which will add a bit more logic than simply debiting/crediting accounts. Others can then just send transactions to this computer to make a function call to any program (smart contract) that was installed on the computer.
The cool thing really is that we’re all using the same computer with the same database and the same programs.
Now in practice, nobody would trust a single point of failure like that. What if the computer crashes, or burns in a fire? Distributed systems to the rescue! We use distributed system protocols to run the same database on many computers distributed around the world. These distributed system protocols effectively simulate a single database/computer so that a few computers failing doesn’t mean the end of the blockchain.
On top of that, we refuse to trust the computers that participate in this protocol. They could be lying about the balance in your account. We want the computers to police one another and agree on the database they are simulating. That’s where consensus protocols are used: to make the distributed database secure even when some of the participants are malicious.
And that’s it. That’s blockchain tech for you. The obvious application is money, as the secure and simulated single computer is useful to simplify a payment system, but really any distributed database that cannot trust some of its participants can benefit from the advances there.
The simplest abstraction is to see cryptocurrency / blockchain / distributed ledger technology as a database running on a single computer. Everybody can access this database and there’s some simple logic that allows you to debit your account and credit someone else’s account. The computer has a queue to make sure transactions are processed in order.
Blockchains that support smart contracts allow for people to install programs to that computer, which will add a bit more logic than simply debiting/crediting accounts. Others can then just send transactions to this computer to make a function call to any program (smart contract) that was installed on the computer.
The cool thing really is that we’re all using the same computer with the same database and the same programs.
Now in practice, nobody would trust a single point of failure like that. What if the computer crashes, or burns in a fire? Distributed systems to the rescue! We use distributed system protocols to run the same database on many computers distributed around the world. These distributed system protocols effectively simulate a single database/computer so that a few computers failing doesn’t mean the end of the blockchain.
On top of that, we refuse to trust the computers that participate in this protocol. They could be lying about the balance in your account. We want the computers to police one another and agree on the database they are simulating. That’s where consensus protocols are used: to make the distributed database secure even when some of the participants are malicious.
And that’s it. That’s blockchain tech for you. The obvious application is money, as the secure and simulated single computer is useful to simplify a payment system, but really any distributed database that cannot trust some of its participants can benefit from the advances there.
"Now, imagine that you lose your password to that really cool computer. Everything belonging to you is lost forever! Neat huh!"
"Also, imagine that this really cool computer might be one of the ones that uses more electricity than some countries! Really, really neat!"
"Also, imagine that this really cool computer might be one of the ones that uses more electricity than some countries! Really, really neat!"
Social recovery wallets address the first objection.
Proof of Stake reduces blockchain energy consumption by a lot. I've seen people quoting that a proof of stake block production consumes about as much energy as a Google search.
Proof of Stake reduces blockchain energy consumption by a lot. I've seen people quoting that a proof of stake block production consumes about as much energy as a Google search.
Sorry but what electricity consumption? Have you read the post? Only old technology does that
Have you heard of "insurance"? If you lose money you can get it back.
Logistically I always wondered about this. How can you prove that you really lost access to the money if you forget your password, or it’s stolen?
It’s illogical impossibilities all the way down.
Composability and open APIs are rarely talked about.
Composability lets you create a token to represent anything* of value and exchange it for other tokens. ETH and BTC are tokenizations of proof of work.
Open APIs exist for any verified contract on Ethereum. You can permissionlessly plug a new application into many existing ones if your application is even partially on-chain
Composability lets you create a token to represent anything* of value and exchange it for other tokens. ETH and BTC are tokenizations of proof of work.
Open APIs exist for any verified contract on Ethereum. You can permissionlessly plug a new application into many existing ones if your application is even partially on-chain
99% of things that claim to need a blockchain can do exactly the same thing with https://opentimestamps.org/ which uses an existing blockchain to do decentralized "trusted timestamping".
The remaining 1% are problems that need to solve the double-spend problem.
The remaining 1% are problems that need to solve the double-spend problem.
> can do exactly the same thing with https://opentimestamps.org/
Others exists, but yes, the only legitimate blockchain companies i know use it to stamp documents/emails. I also think a public blockchain can help democratizing a sort of global crypto auth like said in other comments.
But those issues, while hard to truly solve, are not really important, and can be tackled quite easely with third-party trust. I understand that we are more and more individualistic, that our social contract is dying and thus for crypto bros, a third party trustee is not an adequat solution.
Others exists, but yes, the only legitimate blockchain companies i know use it to stamp documents/emails. I also think a public blockchain can help democratizing a sort of global crypto auth like said in other comments.
But those issues, while hard to truly solve, are not really important, and can be tackled quite easely with third-party trust. I understand that we are more and more individualistic, that our social contract is dying and thus for crypto bros, a third party trustee is not an adequat solution.
We keep going through this cycle of attempting decentralization. Since the dawn of the internet. I wonder if it will stick.
The most successful version of it when broadband really took off was torrents.
Then we got git.
Now we got cryptocurrency/blockchain.
I think by the end of this hype curve/cycle, blockchain will be relegated to decentralized finance, which will likely become an interesting part of the broader financial system.
I wonder what will come next. I don't see decentralized identity verification taking off. Public/Private Key encryption for ID means relying on users to not lose their private key...or storing it for them and backing it up in some form of centralized and managed storage (i.e. cloud). So not gonna happen.
The most successful version of it when broadband really took off was torrents.
Then we got git.
Now we got cryptocurrency/blockchain.
I think by the end of this hype curve/cycle, blockchain will be relegated to decentralized finance, which will likely become an interesting part of the broader financial system.
I wonder what will come next. I don't see decentralized identity verification taking off. Public/Private Key encryption for ID means relying on users to not lose their private key...or storing it for them and backing it up in some form of centralized and managed storage (i.e. cloud). So not gonna happen.
> decentralized finance, which will likely become an interesting part of the broader financial system.
I’m all for decentralized finance, but abhor the idea of a public ledger except for one very specific use case: government allocation and spending.
Privacy oriented blockchains may be slightly better, but if the safeguards are ever broken, they are no better than open ledgers.
The CBDC proposals are even worse, imho, proposing no public ledger, but allowing blessed private entities to receive events to make rain their own private ledgers.
I don’t know what digital decentralized finance looks like without public accounting, but I’d prefer something as anonymous and ephemeral as cash transactions for something that I use regularly.
I’m all for decentralized finance, but abhor the idea of a public ledger except for one very specific use case: government allocation and spending.
Privacy oriented blockchains may be slightly better, but if the safeguards are ever broken, they are no better than open ledgers.
The CBDC proposals are even worse, imho, proposing no public ledger, but allowing blessed private entities to receive events to make rain their own private ledgers.
I don’t know what digital decentralized finance looks like without public accounting, but I’d prefer something as anonymous and ephemeral as cash transactions for something that I use regularly.
There's a lot of "this or that" in the technology space. I use OAuth and classic username/passwords for authentication. For really important services, if possible I use multiple methods. Some websites are smart enough to allow you to connect one login type to another, some don't.
The reason I'm saying this is because, if public key login is supported, and key management is hard, there's no reason why an alternative username/password method couldn't be also supported alongside. That way you lose one method of connection, you can fallback to another one.
Would you need this for all services you use? Probably not. For example using a public key login on something like hacker news, and being required to create a new account when I lose that? No big deal. Losing my public key when trying to login to my back account, well let me fallback to a "forgotten public key flow" that uses my email address to set up a new key.
The reason I'm saying this is because, if public key login is supported, and key management is hard, there's no reason why an alternative username/password method couldn't be also supported alongside. That way you lose one method of connection, you can fallback to another one.
Would you need this for all services you use? Probably not. For example using a public key login on something like hacker news, and being required to create a new account when I lose that? No big deal. Losing my public key when trying to login to my back account, well let me fallback to a "forgotten public key flow" that uses my email address to set up a new key.
Yes, but then this takes away the idea of one private key to rule them all for identifying someone. The moment you've lost that key, you've lost access to all the services relying on it. Each might have their own backup mechanism to fall back on, but suddenly the UX really sucks.
I would add that Keybase solved the identity issue across logins via PKI with a very neat UI. It's a shame that Zoom bought the team and de-emphasized the product.
Keybase being a traditional centralized platform was/is precisely the issue: Single point of failure and trust in one company. All it took was Zoom acquiring them to make the whole system obsolete.
We need something with logical centralization but independent of any single actor or company.
We need something with logical centralization but independent of any single actor or company.
Like an open source operating system that ships with VPN in the kernel, and can be managed by a UI in a Docker container
Blockchain development is funded by VCs looking to stay relevant.
It’s software; there’s no panacea and thousands of options for solving problems; blockchain is just one.
Blockchain development is funded by VCs looking to stay relevant.
It’s software; there’s no panacea and thousands of options for solving problems; blockchain is just one.
Maybe. The interface was there but in general it had created a security and usability dilemma.
For convenience over security, it gave the choice of storing your private key on their servers. If Zoom was to one day shut Keybase down, your private key is now gone. Otherwise for security over convenience, if you store it on your own computer you're more likely to lose it.
Those trade-offs in Keybase's key management is probably why it did not take off including that they were on a VC payroll and not making any money at all from the service. It was only a matter of time that without Zoom, they would end up shutting down.
For convenience over security, it gave the choice of storing your private key on their servers. If Zoom was to one day shut Keybase down, your private key is now gone. Otherwise for security over convenience, if you store it on your own computer you're more likely to lose it.
Those trade-offs in Keybase's key management is probably why it did not take off including that they were on a VC payroll and not making any money at all from the service. It was only a matter of time that without Zoom, they would end up shutting down.
> If Zoom was to one day shut Keybase down, your private key is now gone. Otherwise for security over convenience, if you store it on your own computer you're more likely to lose it.
I'm not so sure about this. Each of my devices absolutely has a key stored on it that is offline capable. Loss of keybase servers would matter but not the extent that you're claiming, from what I can tell. https://book.keybase.io/security#your-private-keys-are-only-...
I'm not so sure about this. Each of my devices absolutely has a key stored on it that is offline capable. Loss of keybase servers would matter but not the extent that you're claiming, from what I can tell. https://book.keybase.io/security#your-private-keys-are-only-...
Economic games are part of the security, Keybase demonstrates this clearly.
I feel like this article, among others, kind of misses the point on why blockchains are useful. Decentralization, IMO, is incredibly overrated. What makes blockchains useful is that you can build highly interoperable applications that won't break due to changing interfaces. If AWS or the US government built a similar general purpose, open smart contract platform, I think we'd see similar levels of activity there. But they didn't, so we're using blockchains instead.
Standards and decentralization are orthogonal to each other.
Standards are good for interoperability. Decentralization, depending on the flavor, either focuses on distributed hosting ensuring the system not needing to be run by some huge international company, or on not having a center of authority that mandates some particular standard or agenda.
Many fail in the later aim. Bitcoin is supposedly decentralized but in practice controlled by a very small group, for instance.
Standards are good for interoperability. Decentralization, depending on the flavor, either focuses on distributed hosting ensuring the system not needing to be run by some huge international company, or on not having a center of authority that mandates some particular standard or agenda.
Many fail in the later aim. Bitcoin is supposedly decentralized but in practice controlled by a very small group, for instance.
the smart contract space is doing pretty well in terms of standards. the "tokens" and "NFTs" you hear about in the media are implementations of specific standards.
That doesn't make much sense. There's APIs now, and API intermediaries line Zapier, IFTTT. AWS APIs are backwards compatible, as I'm sure is the case for whatever US government APIs there are.
So what's missing?
So what's missing?
If I write some dip shit application and host it on my server, and you want to write an application that interops with mine, I can change my API (or the data itself) under your nose. You have no formal guarantees. Smart contracts make guarantees about what can change and what can't change.
Ethereum makes no such guarantee after the introduction of delegatecall, where it's possible to replace one smart contract implementation with another.
True. I'm curious what this sort of hit replacement would look like in practice. But, you can't add it in after the fact, so you at least have the option of writing contracts that give you the formal guarantee.
Mostly agree, but missing the point that there are non-decentralized blockchains that operate like an open standard seem to failed to gain any traction (or at least awareness) since 2019, to name some: Hyperledger Fabric, Corda R3.
What does a private blockchain accomplish that an immutable ledger does not?
Nothing really. It's just one kind of immutable ledger. If you have a use case where decentralization of the infrastructure is important, you don't care as much about network effects, and you know all your counterparties, then a private chain might be suitable.
When you identify the primary reason why corporations and governments never built built a centralized smart contract platform that's general purpose, open source, cross-border and uncensored, then you will know why decentralization is essential.
Don't get me wrong, the decentralization is important. I'd rather the network infrastructure of an expansive, public, general purpose computing network be decentralized. But to be useful in the first place you need important, interoperable applications running on it.
why don't you tell us?
The author understand the usefulness of blockchains. The point is that there are technologies which are components of the blockchain that are really all you need to implement a lot of use cases. For ex pub/priv key alone.
>Well then, you might ask, why are we running around logging in with email+password, or god forbid, Login with Facebook? Why aren't we logging into everywhere with public keys, if the technology is so old?
I like to to think i'm not logging in with my wallet, i'm logging in with my private key. I just also happen to have a crypto wallet also attached to that same private key.
I like to to think i'm not logging in with my wallet, i'm logging in with my private key. I just also happen to have a crypto wallet also attached to that same private key.
I really don't get what authors mean when they write:
"giving users control over their data"
The only thing that does that is enforceable laws - that are also enforced.
The moment I give my date-of-birth to a site, they can store it wherever they like. I have exactly zero control over it.
So what is the data that I have control over in this new distributed future?
The only thing that does that is enforceable laws - that are also enforced.
The moment I give my date-of-birth to a site, they can store it wherever they like. I have exactly zero control over it.
So what is the data that I have control over in this new distributed future?
Estonia has a system for this using blockchains. However, it requires a government agency and proper legislation to implement.
For example, if a hospital wants your health information, you have to manually approve their access over there. The same is true for other information the government stores. Government agencies likewise have to ask for access to information, for example, the equivalent of a DMV would request some personal info before they can obtain it.
For example, if a hospital wants your health information, you have to manually approve their access over there. The same is true for other information the government stores. Government agencies likewise have to ask for access to information, for example, the equivalent of a DMV would request some personal info before they can obtain it.
Yes, nothing here requires blockchains and I do want to manually approve giving my healthcare information to a new provider.
Once given though, all bets are off. They could be selling it. There's no technological solution for that. Just laws.
Once given though, all bets are off. They could be selling it. There's no technological solution for that. Just laws.
Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15RTC22Z2xI
You should try reading the article. It really isn't about Blockchains. It's saying Web3's identity system is great, with or without the blockchain attached.
The rest of the article is good, but this part is wrong:
>This can be incredibly useful, and is necessary for some applications.
There is no reason to have a system "without trust", the very idea of that makes no sense and there is no such thing as a system "without trust". Examples: To even use a computer or use a computer network you have to on some level trust the manufacturer of the systems as well as the supply chain that built it. To use any blockchain you have to trust that at some point it's not going to get 51% attacked. To use any businesses that work on the blockchain you have to trust those businesses on some level instead of just trusting "the blockchain" or a smart contract, if eventually you expect to receive a good or service that transfers into the real world, because agreements about those things can only be upheld by lawyers, not blockchains. The amount of entities you have to trust to realistically interact with any blockchain is massive. The idea that they're somehow "trustless" is simply wrong.
And I've made comments about this before but I'll make it again. Blockchains are useless and are unnecessary for every application. They do nothing that isn't better achieved by another consensus mechanism. The only reason to use PoW/PoS or any of the other blockchain consensus algorithms is to use them to implement cryptocurrency, which is only useful as a form of unregulated and volatile and mostly useless money that you can pay people in those tokens for running the network. If you can come up with any other way to pay people to run a network, then you don't need cryptocurrency.
>This can be incredibly useful, and is necessary for some applications.
There is no reason to have a system "without trust", the very idea of that makes no sense and there is no such thing as a system "without trust". Examples: To even use a computer or use a computer network you have to on some level trust the manufacturer of the systems as well as the supply chain that built it. To use any blockchain you have to trust that at some point it's not going to get 51% attacked. To use any businesses that work on the blockchain you have to trust those businesses on some level instead of just trusting "the blockchain" or a smart contract, if eventually you expect to receive a good or service that transfers into the real world, because agreements about those things can only be upheld by lawyers, not blockchains. The amount of entities you have to trust to realistically interact with any blockchain is massive. The idea that they're somehow "trustless" is simply wrong.
And I've made comments about this before but I'll make it again. Blockchains are useless and are unnecessary for every application. They do nothing that isn't better achieved by another consensus mechanism. The only reason to use PoW/PoS or any of the other blockchain consensus algorithms is to use them to implement cryptocurrency, which is only useful as a form of unregulated and volatile and mostly useless money that you can pay people in those tokens for running the network. If you can come up with any other way to pay people to run a network, then you don't need cryptocurrency.
Rather than viewing it as “trustless” you can view it as “trust minimized”. Then it might make more sense. Trust with your counterparty falls on a spectrum.
You trust your friend, but maybe not an anonymous online individual. So you might use the blockchain to accept payments from the anonymous individual whereas with your friend, you might accept a check or Venmo.
You trust your friend, but maybe not an anonymous online individual. So you might use the blockchain to accept payments from the anonymous individual whereas with your friend, you might accept a check or Venmo.
The only situation where trust is minimized or absent is jurisdictions where there is no law or less law, in which case you’re going to use force instead of code to enforce law.
Trust is an inherent property of a functioning society, and hence why the bonafide use cases for blockchain and crypto are so few. If you live somewhere where the police, a judge, or government can make you whole in a dispute, not a lot of need for web3. If you live somewhere where that isn’t the case (failing nation states, authoritarian regimes), that’s a better product market fit for web3.
Trust is an inherent property of a functioning society, and hence why the bonafide use cases for blockchain and crypto are so few. If you live somewhere where the police, a judge, or government can make you whole in a dispute, not a lot of need for web3. If you live somewhere where that isn’t the case (failing nation states, authoritarian regimes), that’s a better product market fit for web3.
> The only situation where trust is minimized or absent is jurisdictions where there is no law or less law, in which case you’re going to use force instead of code to enforce law.
Or where you don't want to share your identity... like maybe the internet?
Or where you don't want to share your identity... like maybe the internet?
In which case, you violate nation state laws against KYC and AML, and the repercussions that go along with that.
Having the ability to implement a solution technically does not make it legal or without consequence (like Virgil Griffith, formerly of the Ethereum Foundation, who demonstrated to North Korea how to evade sanctions trading Ethereum and is going to jail for five years for doing so).
Having the ability to implement a solution technically does not make it legal or without consequence (like Virgil Griffith, formerly of the Ethereum Foundation, who demonstrated to North Korea how to evade sanctions trading Ethereum and is going to jail for five years for doing so).
> In which case, you violate nation state laws against KYC and AML, and the repercussions that go along with that.
No, actually. Many people send crypto transactions all the time, and do so anonymously, and the vast majority of them don't get in trouble for it.
Descriptively, it is untrue that there is some sort of wide scale crack down on anonymous crypto transactions in the west.
And no, before you say it, it doesn't really matter if, hypothetically, a future government could become extremely authoritarian, and arrest all the crypto users, because for whatever reason, crypto has been around for a decade, and governments aren't doing that.
The reality, and facts on the ground, are that people making anonymous crypto transactions all the time, and don't get in trouble with that, no matter how much people will then respond to this post by saying "Well, what if the government started doing it tomorrow!". Its not happening. Therefore, it is a useful usecase.
No, actually. Many people send crypto transactions all the time, and do so anonymously, and the vast majority of them don't get in trouble for it.
Descriptively, it is untrue that there is some sort of wide scale crack down on anonymous crypto transactions in the west.
And no, before you say it, it doesn't really matter if, hypothetically, a future government could become extremely authoritarian, and arrest all the crypto users, because for whatever reason, crypto has been around for a decade, and governments aren't doing that.
The reality, and facts on the ground, are that people making anonymous crypto transactions all the time, and don't get in trouble with that, no matter how much people will then respond to this post by saying "Well, what if the government started doing it tomorrow!". Its not happening. Therefore, it is a useful usecase.
> Descriptively, it is untrue that there is some sort of wide scale crack down on anonymous crypto transactions in the west.
Europe: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2022/html/ecb.sp220...
US Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
UK: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/uk-to-mint-its-own-nft-and-p...
China: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/24/china-says-all-cryptocurre...
South Korea: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42784384
Japan: https://www.fxempire.com/news/article/financial-services-age...
Caveat being India and Japan, these are the top 10 economies in the world.
Europe: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/press/key/date/2022/html/ecb.sp220...
US Executive Order: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
UK: https://www.cnbc.com/2022/04/04/uk-to-mint-its-own-nft-and-p...
China: https://techcrunch.com/2021/09/24/china-says-all-cryptocurre...
South Korea: https://www.bbc.com/news/business-42784384
Japan: https://www.fxempire.com/news/article/financial-services-age...
Caveat being India and Japan, these are the top 10 economies in the world.
C'mon. Stop. You know that the government is not going around raiding crypto meetups and arresting people.
People send crypto transactions all the time and don't get arrested.
I know this. You know this. We don't have to pretend.
People use crypto all the time and don't get in trouble for it. We both know this.
I used crypto just this morning on chain. Nothing happened to me, even though I didn't send a KYC letter to the government about it.
The government isn't going to show up at my doorstep tomorrow because I used a smart contract.
Your feelings, are what is called "cope". People have been predicting for years and years that all the crypto people were going to be sent to jail, yet it keeps not happening.
Instead, the only thing that has happened, is that more and more of the entire tech industry has moved towards using more crypto.
I went to GDC a couple weeks ago, and I learned that a freaking 3rd of the video games industry is desperately trying to figure out how to add NFTs to their games.
I wonder what industry will be next? And will it ever been enough, to dismiss the constantly wrong people, who continue to be wrong about all the crypto people going to jail? Because I remember the same arguments a decade ago. Still hasn't happened yet.
I still go to crypto meetups every week, and I am not seeing the police raids, for all the illegal things that you think we are doing.
Or, in other words. Cope.
People send crypto transactions all the time and don't get arrested.
I know this. You know this. We don't have to pretend.
People use crypto all the time and don't get in trouble for it. We both know this.
I used crypto just this morning on chain. Nothing happened to me, even though I didn't send a KYC letter to the government about it.
The government isn't going to show up at my doorstep tomorrow because I used a smart contract.
Your feelings, are what is called "cope". People have been predicting for years and years that all the crypto people were going to be sent to jail, yet it keeps not happening.
Instead, the only thing that has happened, is that more and more of the entire tech industry has moved towards using more crypto.
I went to GDC a couple weeks ago, and I learned that a freaking 3rd of the video games industry is desperately trying to figure out how to add NFTs to their games.
I wonder what industry will be next? And will it ever been enough, to dismiss the constantly wrong people, who continue to be wrong about all the crypto people going to jail? Because I remember the same arguments a decade ago. Still hasn't happened yet.
I still go to crypto meetups every week, and I am not seeing the police raids, for all the illegal things that you think we are doing.
Or, in other words. Cope.
It's easier to have trust when there's less trust required, that statement should make sense without seeing it as an attack on inherent properties of a functioning society. And the reason that the financial system didn't break down entirely in 2008 is that taxpayers made the banks whole again. Nothing has changed fundamentally about the way banking works since, they've just added some regulations that reduce the extent of the same activities that led to the crisis.
> If you live somewhere where the police (...) can make you whole in a dispute, not a lot of need for web3. (...) somewhere where that isn’t the case (...), that’s a better product market fit for web3.
Being part of a "functioning society" is not a static property and even less so in this globalized world.
Try coordinating work with a team distributed around the world and you will see that your functioning institutions do not help your colleague in Venezuela, Argentina, Syria or Ukraine. And if you don't have/know people from these places, ask yourself why. Try helping a Brazilian immigrant living in the US that wants to get their savings to buy property back home, see how painful/inefficient it is to send anything over $2-3 thousand. Suddenly your appreciation of "web3" increases.
And even just in your own developed country, there is no guarantee that things will stay functional forever. Just look at the US and the events of January, Hong-Kong, or any country that was a former state of the USSR and needs to worry about Vlad.
A decentralized web that does not depend on the functional institutions is insurance: you pray that you will never use it, but you should be glad to know it is there if you need it.
Being part of a "functioning society" is not a static property and even less so in this globalized world.
Try coordinating work with a team distributed around the world and you will see that your functioning institutions do not help your colleague in Venezuela, Argentina, Syria or Ukraine. And if you don't have/know people from these places, ask yourself why. Try helping a Brazilian immigrant living in the US that wants to get their savings to buy property back home, see how painful/inefficient it is to send anything over $2-3 thousand. Suddenly your appreciation of "web3" increases.
And even just in your own developed country, there is no guarantee that things will stay functional forever. Just look at the US and the events of January, Hong-Kong, or any country that was a former state of the USSR and needs to worry about Vlad.
A decentralized web that does not depend on the functional institutions is insurance: you pray that you will never use it, but you should be glad to know it is there if you need it.
> If you live somewhere where the police, a judge, or government can make you whole in a dispute
You're missing the point. If you create a system where you won't need to make use of the legal system because transactions execute correctly by default, your transaction costs are suddenly way lower.
Obviously your counterparty can still sue you after the fact, but thats a much better position to be in than needing the legal system to push the transaction through in the first place.
You're missing the point. If you create a system where you won't need to make use of the legal system because transactions execute correctly by default, your transaction costs are suddenly way lower.
Obviously your counterparty can still sue you after the fact, but thats a much better position to be in than needing the legal system to push the transaction through in the first place.
> transactions execute correctly by default
That's not what you get, because in practice you want some physical good for your BTC and a blockchain cannot enforce that you do get it, it can only enforce that the BTC are transferred from one address to another.
That's not what you get, because in practice you want some physical good for your BTC and a blockchain cannot enforce that you do get it, it can only enforce that the BTC are transferred from one address to another.
Not necessarily..tons of financial transactions are purely digital (currency exchange, stocks, derivatives etc).
You can also tokenize a real world asset (for example a token representing an amount of gold). Then you have to trust the issuer of the token, but it's very possible you trust that issuer but don't trust your counterparty.
You can also tokenize a real world asset (for example a token representing an amount of gold). Then you have to trust the issuer of the token, but it's very possible you trust that issuer but don't trust your counterparty.
The examples you mentioned are not purely digital since they rely heavily on the legal system. You don't consider tokens abstracted from the whole physical world.
I meant that nothing is fully embedded within a blockchain (maybe physical was the wrong word).
I meant that nothing is fully embedded within a blockchain (maybe physical was the wrong word).
For sure, something like a stock still has a real-life counterparty that you can't get rid of. Trading it on a blockchain eliminates only the counterparty risk from the person you trade with, not with the party issuing the token / asset. This is true for basically everything except the native token.
> Trading it on a blockchain eliminates only the counterparty risk from the person you trade with
I think we agree here. The question then is: how useful is this really?
For example, assume I have some USD that I want to trade for VT, and I want to decide between using a blockchain or not.
The counterparty risk solved by using a blockchain is:
1. No blockchain: the broker (who's between me and the person I want to trade with) can technically keep the USD and the VT.
2. Blockchain: this cannot happen because a smart contract prevents it.
But:
a. How often are you in a situation where you trust the entities backing the two assets (USD and VT here) but can't find a broker whose trustworthiness is implied by the trustworthiness of the two entities backing the two other assets?
b. Less trust is always better, but blockchain-based solutions bring their own problems (e.g. private key custody). Are there even cases in which this trade-off is worth it?
I think we agree here. The question then is: how useful is this really?
For example, assume I have some USD that I want to trade for VT, and I want to decide between using a blockchain or not.
The counterparty risk solved by using a blockchain is:
1. No blockchain: the broker (who's between me and the person I want to trade with) can technically keep the USD and the VT.
2. Blockchain: this cannot happen because a smart contract prevents it.
But:
a. How often are you in a situation where you trust the entities backing the two assets (USD and VT here) but can't find a broker whose trustworthiness is implied by the trustworthiness of the two entities backing the two other assets?
b. Less trust is always better, but blockchain-based solutions bring their own problems (e.g. private key custody). Are there even cases in which this trade-off is worth it?
What if I:
- Am not in a jurisdiction where there is a trustworthy broker for VT or USD?
- Want to loan someone my VT (for example for them to short)?
- Want to buy some derivative of VT (easy to do in the US for VT American-style options, but this isn't true for all derivatives on all assets in all markets)
- Need to buy a large amount of VT and using the open market isn't cost effective?
VT maybe isn't the best example in favor of crypto as it's probably already one of the easiest assets in the world to trade safely online. There's lots of other stuff that's way trickier in the current system.
- Am not in a jurisdiction where there is a trustworthy broker for VT or USD?
- Want to loan someone my VT (for example for them to short)?
- Want to buy some derivative of VT (easy to do in the US for VT American-style options, but this isn't true for all derivatives on all assets in all markets)
- Need to buy a large amount of VT and using the open market isn't cost effective?
VT maybe isn't the best example in favor of crypto as it's probably already one of the easiest assets in the world to trade safely online. There's lots of other stuff that's way trickier in the current system.
1. that's unlikely you're allowed to trade VT at all in this case.
2. the real hurdle is regulations rather than anything technical.
3. again, you don't need a technical solution, you need a legal one.
4. and this will be more effective thanks to a blockchain? How so? So far, blockchain-based solutions seem more costly rather than less.
The current system has a lot of limitations, but many (most?) of them are of regulatory rather than technical nature, and blockchains do not help in that regard.
2. the real hurdle is regulations rather than anything technical.
3. again, you don't need a technical solution, you need a legal one.
4. and this will be more effective thanks to a blockchain? How so? So far, blockchain-based solutions seem more costly rather than less.
The current system has a lot of limitations, but many (most?) of them are of regulatory rather than technical nature, and blockchains do not help in that regard.
The legal system is slow
Slow, unreliable, and expensive. I think mostly people in the U.S. significantly overestimate how much access they actually have to the legal system. This misconception vanishes very quickly the first time one has occasion to interact with the legal system.
And in about four hours I'm going to hear an equally-confident HN lecture about how "it's not worth it to sue" for less than $1000.
Crypto-skeptics talk like the legal system is currently equipped to robustly make you whole in those transactions. It is manifestly not. Those transactions do, in fact, depend on other means of establishing trust.
To be sure, a legal system is an important mechanism for facilitating trust. But also, be careful not to overstate its relevance either.
Crypto-skeptics talk like the legal system is currently equipped to robustly make you whole in those transactions. It is manifestly not. Those transactions do, in fact, depend on other means of establishing trust.
To be sure, a legal system is an important mechanism for facilitating trust. But also, be careful not to overstate its relevance either.
While I suppose I technically agree with you that you can't literally remove all trust by some definitions, that doesn't mean it's not vitally important to talking about and carefully considering who you trust and in many cases use technology to remove the reliance on trusting particular parties.
For example, if I say "I want to use TLS to order something from an online retailer because I don't want to trust my ISP with my credit card and purchase information" it would not be appropriate to respond with "well that's just ridiculous, because there's no way to remove all trust, after all you still have to trust the online retailer to ship you the item, you have to trust your credit card company to not overcharge you, etc."
For example, if I say "I want to use TLS to order something from an online retailer because I don't want to trust my ISP with my credit card and purchase information" it would not be appropriate to respond with "well that's just ridiculous, because there's no way to remove all trust, after all you still have to trust the online retailer to ship you the item, you have to trust your credit card company to not overcharge you, etc."
You're correct but that's not the way that these systems are promoted. I wouldn't have any problem with that particular aspect if the trust issue was framed that way, and there was some kind of real threat modeling going on. The idea of cryptocurrency is still terrible however.
Note your quote from the author was talking about collaboration without requiring trust in collaborators not a system without requiring trust in the system. 51% attacks are the closest to what the author was actually talking about but that has more to do with trusting and accepting how the system (and as you say, somewhat reality) works than any particular trust in a collaborator.
That said it still doesn't make the list of cases this capability is needed any longer.
That said it still doesn't make the list of cases this capability is needed any longer.
Don't fall into the trap of word-thinking. When people talk about "trustless" systems, it just means that there is no hidden state. What one sees as the consensus is valid for everyone.
"Word-thinking". I like that phrase: when you over-index on the specific word as opposed to the meaning intended. For instance, thinking "act of god" is meaningless in a legal document etc.
Takk takk
Takk takk
[deleted]
[deleted]
“Useless” is a strong statement which probably goes too far.
One of the strongest usecases for blockchain is a distributed ledger among mostly trusted entities who frequently exchange resources.
One or more of the big banks is developing blockchain to facilitate payments between banks who end up settling enormous amounts of money between them on a daily basis. It is just nicer and much lower overhead to have a distributed and cryptographically proven way to interact with this ledger than having one bank administer it. The mostly trusted nature of the relationships between them also means if there is an error, transactions can easily be reversed or fixed and there’s no concept of anything being stolen because the ledger doesn’t actually store any value.
One of the strongest usecases for blockchain is a distributed ledger among mostly trusted entities who frequently exchange resources.
One or more of the big banks is developing blockchain to facilitate payments between banks who end up settling enormous amounts of money between them on a daily basis. It is just nicer and much lower overhead to have a distributed and cryptographically proven way to interact with this ledger than having one bank administer it. The mostly trusted nature of the relationships between them also means if there is an error, transactions can easily be reversed or fixed and there’s no concept of anything being stolen because the ledger doesn’t actually store any value.
ScPrime and Storj use the blockchain to reduce micro-payment fees to data centers for data storage and bandwidth. Sure this could be done via traditional banking arrangements but the transaction fees would take a major bite out of the data center's profits.
No safeguard is foolproof, including protections against 51% attacks. That doesn't make the precautions pointless though. It's like saying locks are useless because they can be picked.
From what I’ve seen from LockPickingLawyer, I now think locks are only useful to help honest people know what not to take: https://youtu.be/ULUz4u5FLYg
I think that perspective is overblown. Yeah, anyone with the inclination to practice a bit can bypass a lock. You're not going to stop a professional burglary ring with any kind of lock.
But there are a lot more lazy crackheads and dumb teenagers than professional burglars.
But there are a lot more lazy crackheads and dumb teenagers than professional burglars.
An interesting point from the LockPickingLawyer that I'd like to point out is that while many, many locks are easy to break if you're interested, it's still effort. Your average locker or bike thief isn't picking locks, they're just taking whatever's easiest.
Sure but every blockchain I've seen make an effort to be decentralized has its "precautions" mostly in the form of an NGO that tries to manage the competing interests of every participant through various methods, to varying levels of success. A lot of them look suspiciously like unregulated credit unions or trust funds. There's that word "trust" again...
Including Bitcoin and Ethereum? Maybe I'm not sure exactly what you mean.
Is anybody else using blockchains as compute nodes? Like lambda that your users pay for to update the state of your application instead of you, while reading is completely free? I haven't seen an equivalent system thats so economical for developers.
I don't care that my application doesn't need to be on all 7000 nodes, not even a factor.
And as far as funnels go, in Web 2.0 logic the point of the "funnel" was to convert a user into a paying user, in Web 3 they are already paying users at the beginning of the funnel, and pay to update the state of your application before you ask them to do anything, this is heavily optimized for driving revenue when applying the funnel concept. So if you design your application for this, you can strip out most of the complicated frontend and backend stack and don't have to pay subscriptions to any SaaS service, and get revenue because your funnel is 1 step too.
I don't care that my application doesn't need to be on all 7000 nodes, not even a factor.
And as far as funnels go, in Web 2.0 logic the point of the "funnel" was to convert a user into a paying user, in Web 3 they are already paying users at the beginning of the funnel, and pay to update the state of your application before you ask them to do anything, this is heavily optimized for driving revenue when applying the funnel concept. So if you design your application for this, you can strip out most of the complicated frontend and backend stack and don't have to pay subscriptions to any SaaS service, and get revenue because your funnel is 1 step too.
"I don't care that my application doesn't need to be on all 7000 nodes, not even a factor."
This is an interesting topic, blockchain security is very useful for a bunch of applications (i'd prefence that to say stop trying to touch the real world with the blockchain, and you realize it's fucking amazing) but you don't need the same amount of distributed security for all applications. Banking apps need high security, gaming apps need a lot less. Avalanche is really interesting in this respect. It has the main C-Chain which has thousands of validators but it also has subnets which might have just a few validators. This gives you the ability to toggle your security needs to your application (it also let's you toggle the VM, so you do things like add stateful precompiles which let you do things that may not be practical in the EVM.
This is an interesting topic, blockchain security is very useful for a bunch of applications (i'd prefence that to say stop trying to touch the real world with the blockchain, and you realize it's fucking amazing) but you don't need the same amount of distributed security for all applications. Banking apps need high security, gaming apps need a lot less. Avalanche is really interesting in this respect. It has the main C-Chain which has thousands of validators but it also has subnets which might have just a few validators. This gives you the ability to toggle your security needs to your application (it also let's you toggle the VM, so you do things like add stateful precompiles which let you do things that may not be practical in the EVM.
We may not be able to go completely "without trust", but we can signifiantly reduce the amount of trust required. For financial contracts that can actually make a lot of sense.
There's an army of banking regulators in every country, and yet we still see bank failures where people lose money every year (even in developed countries with functioning deposit insurance there's usually a limit on the amount that is insured), plus we get the occasional financial crisis every few decades, after the memory of the last one has faded.
There's an army of banking regulators in every country, and yet we still see bank failures where people lose money every year (even in developed countries with functioning deposit insurance there's usually a limit on the amount that is insured), plus we get the occasional financial crisis every few decades, after the memory of the last one has faded.
Absolute statments usually don't hold up well.
Have you considered:
Settlement is much quicker. Did you know it could take upto 7 years to settle a cheque/check.
You don't have to trust the business as much as the business has to trust you before they send the goods. Chargebacks and unfavorable refunds can eat into profit. Quick settlements elimate this issue.
Have you considered:
Settlement is much quicker. Did you know it could take upto 7 years to settle a cheque/check.
You don't have to trust the business as much as the business has to trust you before they send the goods. Chargebacks and unfavorable refunds can eat into profit. Quick settlements elimate this issue.
> Absolute statments usually don't hold up well.
There you go. Otherwise I would not see YC's most valuable startup ignoring all these critics and reconsidering and using it for Crypto Payouts if it was so-called 'unnecessary' or 'useless' in the first place. [0]
That is the problem with statements that take a very absolutist direction. It goes either way for anti-crypto supporters and also crypto supporters.
> Chargebacks and unfavorable refunds can eat into profit. Quick settlements elimate this issue.
The customer can instead contact the merchant for a refund instead of abusing the disputes system with chargeback fraud.
[0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto
There you go. Otherwise I would not see YC's most valuable startup ignoring all these critics and reconsidering and using it for Crypto Payouts if it was so-called 'unnecessary' or 'useless' in the first place. [0]
That is the problem with statements that take a very absolutist direction. It goes either way for anti-crypto supporters and also crypto supporters.
> Chargebacks and unfavorable refunds can eat into profit. Quick settlements elimate this issue.
The customer can instead contact the merchant for a refund instead of abusing the disputes system with chargeback fraud.
[0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto
Why are you using the worst case scenario? Plenty of banks settle a check in a single business day.
> Did you know it could take upto 7 years to settle a cheque/check.
The solution to cheques isn't blockchain, but simply to advance out of 19th century banking. Even a 20 year old mainframe would be an upgrade over cheques.
The solution to cheques isn't blockchain, but simply to advance out of 19th century banking. Even a 20 year old mainframe would be an upgrade over cheques.
> Settlement is much quicker. Did you know it could take upto 7 years to settle a cheque/check
That has nothing to do with blockchain and does not mean at all it is the best way to solve the problem
That has nothing to do with blockchain and does not mean at all it is the best way to solve the problem
[deleted]
> However, not all applications require a blockchain.
Exactly. However:
> Services such as social networks could link the user's account to their global identity by providing a signed document proving the user's public key is tied to a certain account, or users can do this on their own by providing a public cryptographic proof on their account. (Keybase)
Yet Keybase kept your private key on their cloud for 'convenience' purposes. If you decide to manage the keys yourself, well you're probably more likely going to lose it. Hence, maybe that is why it didn't take off at all and even after they got acquired.
As for 'blockchain application' is that also why Skiff [0] exists and supports using ENS for identities and will still work even after Skiff shuts down? [1]?
[0] https://skiff.org/
[1] https://skiff.org/blog/skiff-x-ethereum-naming
Exactly. However:
> Services such as social networks could link the user's account to their global identity by providing a signed document proving the user's public key is tied to a certain account, or users can do this on their own by providing a public cryptographic proof on their account. (Keybase)
Yet Keybase kept your private key on their cloud for 'convenience' purposes. If you decide to manage the keys yourself, well you're probably more likely going to lose it. Hence, maybe that is why it didn't take off at all and even after they got acquired.
As for 'blockchain application' is that also why Skiff [0] exists and supports using ENS for identities and will still work even after Skiff shuts down? [1]?
[0] https://skiff.org/
[1] https://skiff.org/blog/skiff-x-ethereum-naming
This is not true about Keybase. They do not ever store your private key on their servers https://book.keybase.io/security
"Your private keys are only stored on your devices. For extra security, your private keys are only stored on the device(s) you use Keybase on. They’re not even stored on Keybase’s servers. So if Keybase gets hacked, the security of your account isn’t compromised."
"Your private keys are only stored on your devices. For extra security, your private keys are only stored on the device(s) you use Keybase on. They’re not even stored on Keybase’s servers. So if Keybase gets hacked, the security of your account isn’t compromised."
> A blockchain […] allows multiple entities (i.e. computers) to collaborate and do computations without needing to trust in either a central authority or in each other
This article seems incorrect from the very first paragraph. Bitcoin, the blockchain figurehead, has needed trust in central authority many times, from 2010 when Satoshi was around [0] to 2013 [1] and beyond. The problem with blockchain as it’s expressed in this article is that it incorrectly describes the system boundary at the software level, where in reality the human layer is very much part of the protocol, especially when it is unclear which chain should be followed (see both citations) due to unexpected software behavior. The “human judge” or “trusted central authority” is part of the blockchain system to ensure its smooth and continuous operation. Without this, the blockchain would devolve into a confused mess, as parties disagree on what is a bug and what isn’t, and what is the “best chain” (regardless of its length). Bitcoin history is filled with these confusing events, and centralized parties always publicly clarify what is Bitcoin and what isn’t, and the rest of the users follow along.
Of course, if blockchain software were written perfectly from day 0 and didn’t need any further development, then you could always follow the longest chain “trustlessly”, but the problem is perfect software is impossible. As soon as the code does the tiniest thing that many users say is unexpected, you have a problem that demands centralized intervention.
[0] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre...
[1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-...
This article seems incorrect from the very first paragraph. Bitcoin, the blockchain figurehead, has needed trust in central authority many times, from 2010 when Satoshi was around [0] to 2013 [1] and beyond. The problem with blockchain as it’s expressed in this article is that it incorrectly describes the system boundary at the software level, where in reality the human layer is very much part of the protocol, especially when it is unclear which chain should be followed (see both citations) due to unexpected software behavior. The “human judge” or “trusted central authority” is part of the blockchain system to ensure its smooth and continuous operation. Without this, the blockchain would devolve into a confused mess, as parties disagree on what is a bug and what isn’t, and what is the “best chain” (regardless of its length). Bitcoin history is filled with these confusing events, and centralized parties always publicly clarify what is Bitcoin and what isn’t, and the rest of the users follow along.
Of course, if blockchain software were written perfectly from day 0 and didn’t need any further development, then you could always follow the longest chain “trustlessly”, but the problem is perfect software is impossible. As soon as the code does the tiniest thing that many users say is unexpected, you have a problem that demands centralized intervention.
[0] https://satoshi.nakamotoinstitute.org/posts/bitcointalk/thre...
[1] https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2015/07/28/analyzing-the-2013-...
The one thing I think that people should get rid of is the use of the word 'decentralization' in regards to blockchains. They're just about the most centralized thing there is because they create a global, ordered and absolute record of transactions. It's one big old state machine distributed across a lot of hardware. Which explains why they're so slow. Ethereum I think used the term 'world computer' at one point, which is apt.
And the author is right that very few people need a world computer. Imagine if you send your grandma a message but but every time you do so you check in with the rest of the world for confirmation. That's 'apps on the blockchain'. Local state is fine and global consensus is irrelevant for probably 99% of what you do.
And the author is right that very few people need a world computer. Imagine if you send your grandma a message but but every time you do so you check in with the rest of the world for confirmation. That's 'apps on the blockchain'. Local state is fine and global consensus is irrelevant for probably 99% of what you do.
The IPFS link does not like to the IPFS technology but to some insurance premium financing site (“IPFS”).
> For almost every use case, global, trustless consensus is not needed, and thus a blockchain is not needed.
This is ridiculous. Try trading stocks without consensus. Play a game, any game. Even better, try exchanging public keys on an adversarial network with no pre-shared secrets or global state.
And what is ‘logging in to ethereum’? This might refer to centralized ethers.js front ends.
The “you don’t need a blockchain” argument is usually either based on acceptance of trust assumptions that go mostly unnoticed, or attacking a strawman of some knavish startup. Blockchain is also not the same thing as cryptocurrency. It may be more legitimate to say “You don’t need a cryptocurrency”, in the same way that it doesn’t make sense to play Doom on an ATM terminal.
This is ridiculous. Try trading stocks without consensus. Play a game, any game. Even better, try exchanging public keys on an adversarial network with no pre-shared secrets or global state.
And what is ‘logging in to ethereum’? This might refer to centralized ethers.js front ends.
The “you don’t need a blockchain” argument is usually either based on acceptance of trust assumptions that go mostly unnoticed, or attacking a strawman of some knavish startup. Blockchain is also not the same thing as cryptocurrency. It may be more legitimate to say “You don’t need a cryptocurrency”, in the same way that it doesn’t make sense to play Doom on an ATM terminal.
> A blockchain, put simply, is a way of building distributed consensus in a trustless system.
How different is a blockchain from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_DHT?
edit: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26415908/whats-the-diffe...
How different is a blockchain from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mainline_DHT?
edit: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26415908/whats-the-diffe...
DHT doesn't build a consensus, most blatantly because nodes don't even have the full set of information but also because if they did they aren't validating it anyways. About the only similarities are they are distributed systems to share data that utilize cryptography in some way.
What does "build a consensus" mean in the context of blockchain?
Consensus of... whether or not the messages are correctly cryptographically signed?
Consensus of... whether or not the messages are correctly cryptographically signed?
Consensus of the order of transactions.
A could sign two messages: "I, A, send my bitcoin to B" and "I, A, send my bitcoin to C". There needs to be global consensus whether the bitcoin ends up with B or C, otherwise the coin would be effectively duplicated and it wouldn't work as money.
And further messages that A might sign in the future should not be able to retroactively change the recipient -- e.g. if we used a rule "the first recipient in alphabetical order wins", then A could take back the money months later by signing "I send my bitcoin to myself".
So bitcoin instead uses "the first transaction to be put into a mined block wins", and thus needs a global consensus for the order of mined blocks.
A could sign two messages: "I, A, send my bitcoin to B" and "I, A, send my bitcoin to C". There needs to be global consensus whether the bitcoin ends up with B or C, otherwise the coin would be effectively duplicated and it wouldn't work as money.
And further messages that A might sign in the future should not be able to retroactively change the recipient -- e.g. if we used a rule "the first recipient in alphabetical order wins", then A could take back the money months later by signing "I send my bitcoin to myself".
So bitcoin instead uses "the first transaction to be put into a mined block wins", and thus needs a global consensus for the order of mined blocks.
It means that if you fetch an update to your DHT from a node, you don't validate if that node actually has the reputation for pushing that update, and the update itself may contain spurious data that eg. rewrites part of already existing data.
This is important when your data is somehow updated and/or when you append more data to a given context, hence the typical tree data structure and not a hash table.
This is important when your data is somehow updated and/or when you append more data to a given context, hence the typical tree data structure and not a hash table.
i feel like most blockchains are just used for
pushing data: i want to send money somewhere
pulling data: so and so (sometimes myself) has received money
you get a list of nodes by DNS resolving seed.bitcoin.sipa.be
then you connect at port 8333 and speak the "BTC" protocol or whatever and either listen for a bunch of data, or push your own data (like a transaction)
where is the validation part that you are referring to?
pushing data: i want to send money somewhere
pulling data: so and so (sometimes myself) has received money
you get a list of nodes by DNS resolving seed.bitcoin.sipa.be
then you connect at port 8333 and speak the "BTC" protocol or whatever and either listen for a bunch of data, or push your own data (like a transaction)
where is the validation part that you are referring to?
Blockchain cryptographically stores that transaction in the state of the blockchain (hence it being a chain) for the rest of time. With DHT you can exchange info between nodes but nobody else is validating the data and when the nodes go offline the data disappears.
How does that work with exchanges like Coinbase? In order to validate their transactions, you have to walk back a ton of transactions?
There's also a standard for this called DIDs (decentralized identifiers) created by the W3C https://www.w3.org/TR/did-core/
There is a huge community around "self sovereign identity" with a conference currently happening right now https://internetidentityworkshop.com/
There is a huge community around "self sovereign identity" with a conference currently happening right now https://internetidentityworkshop.com/
Although Tony Seba hasn't posted a lecture directly addressing it AFAIK, he lists blockchains as one of the transformational technologies for the next decade. And his methodology for picking technologies going through transformational phases (which he details so well for energy, transportation, and agriculture, having made incredibly accurate projections for these years in advance) uses the conceptually simple logic of identifying a logistical function taking hold, and then extrapolating that growth instead of linear to identify a crossover point of majority adoption.
What is hard to grasp about blockchains in this light is simply that when following this curve, they are projected to become relatively much cheaper and better across a range of metrics over time with hardware, software and algorithmic improvements, and therefore they will become increasingly applicable across a variety of scenarios, with consequential side effects in the same way that a shift in energy and transportation changes land use.
It should be a clue that the narratives of both pro and anti keep shifting around as both are frequently proven wrong in spectacular fashion, while the amount of money and employment piled into the space keeps rising amidst these spectacular failures. The market wants to "win crypto" and keeps losing as it slips out of grasp. Meanwhile, the people working on the core tech are experiencing an onrush of new algorithmic developments and have tons of things to build that they weren't even able to conceive of a few years before.
Saying "you don't need a blockchain" is a grandpa joke. Interesting times are happening.
What is hard to grasp about blockchains in this light is simply that when following this curve, they are projected to become relatively much cheaper and better across a range of metrics over time with hardware, software and algorithmic improvements, and therefore they will become increasingly applicable across a variety of scenarios, with consequential side effects in the same way that a shift in energy and transportation changes land use.
It should be a clue that the narratives of both pro and anti keep shifting around as both are frequently proven wrong in spectacular fashion, while the amount of money and employment piled into the space keeps rising amidst these spectacular failures. The market wants to "win crypto" and keeps losing as it slips out of grasp. Meanwhile, the people working on the core tech are experiencing an onrush of new algorithmic developments and have tons of things to build that they weren't even able to conceive of a few years before.
Saying "you don't need a blockchain" is a grandpa joke. Interesting times are happening.
Key management is hard. Hosted but portable might be the way to go. Blockchain is one way to do hosted but portable.
Blockchain is not about key management. You still need to take care of your keys.
A hosted service that you log into can manage on-chain identity for you, but still make it possible for you to transfer identity management to another service, maintaining portability without needing the user to do key management.
Seems like you are making a circular argument.
First you claim blockchain can help with "hosed and portable". Then you claim hosted can help you manage on-chain identity and make it transferable.
While your first argument was plain wrong, your second argument is true, but unrelated to a blockchain: ANY kind of identity can be "hosted and portable": see email.
First you claim blockchain can help with "hosed and portable". Then you claim hosted can help you manage on-chain identity and make it transferable.
While your first argument was plain wrong, your second argument is true, but unrelated to a blockchain: ANY kind of identity can be "hosted and portable": see email.
With your email argument what you're really saying is that DNS is hosted but portable. Which is true, but it's also inconvenient.
A missing thing in this article: How do I know that public key X is associated with entity Y? The answer is not “contact entity Y” because I don’t know who Y really is or how to contact Y. This is the fundamental issue which causes centralization (aka “trusted entities” who certifies a claim).
Everyone has problems with blockchain, but what people forget is that its about extracting wealth from computations, just signing in with a public/private key does none of that, the value of the computations goes to the server manufacturers.
Blockchains are a fundraising strategy for many startups. Put the tech on a blockchain, hype up the utility of the token, and secure the funding needed to build the actual product you want (which is orthogonal to blockchain). It is what it is.
This is mostly true except, critically, for the cryptocurrency use case; which happens to be one of the most important use cases in existence. Currencies make up half of every trade.
It's difficult to fully appreciate how important of a use case that is.
It's difficult to fully appreciate how important of a use case that is.
When asked to build some New Thing(tm) with block chain, my first question is: "What proof of stake system were you thinking to use?"
Its always lead to an interesting conversation that includes to many of the same points TFO mentions.
Its always lead to an interesting conversation that includes to many of the same points TFO mentions.
Maybe currency is not the best use case for blockchains.
But what about the services provided by Notaries?
land registries and other necessarily robust and trustworthy transactions that aren't ever going to happen at a high-volume?
But what about the services provided by Notaries?
land registries and other necessarily robust and trustworthy transactions that aren't ever going to happen at a high-volume?
What issues with land registries are solved by blockchain technologies?
And are those issues actually bad enough that you would accept the new issues introduced by blockchain technologies?
I'm imagining my property becoming forever "unowned" because some real estate lawyer lost their escrow wallet key.
And are those issues actually bad enough that you would accept the new issues introduced by blockchain technologies?
I'm imagining my property becoming forever "unowned" because some real estate lawyer lost their escrow wallet key.
[deleted]
corruption. maybe not a problem in your own country.
Technically sure, in practice dunno. You have to have a group of people that all agree the blockchain is the controlling entity for land registries instead of their regional government which probably has better laws and dispute resolution procedures built in. You'd also have to find a way to actually run the blockchain that is both robust and trustworthy even though it's low volume but high value transactions. At that point you might be onto something but you still have yet to sell to everyone why it's worth switching to just because it's technically possible.
There is no way to link "ownership" of a physical asset to a blockchain, other than a trusted third party who ultimately has use of force as an enforcement method.
Blockchains have the inherited flaw of being dependent of history. Why it will become irrelevant over time. Quote me on this in the immutable log.
I do not agree, blockchain is a perfect example of identity and logins, a log in has always occurred and should be logged and nobody should be able to reverse it.
Editorialized title.
Yes, the submitted title ("You Don't Need a F@%!ing Blockchain") was edited from the original.
The original should certainly have been edited, but not because of the profanity (we're not Bowdlers here) but rather because of the clickbait. (That's the unless in "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
In posts like this where the article begins by confessing to clickbait, the next sentence usually tells you what the real title should be. I've pinched that for the title above.
The original should certainly have been edited, but not because of the profanity (we're not Bowdlers here) but rather because of the clickbait. (That's the unless in "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
In posts like this where the article begins by confessing to clickbait, the next sentence usually tells you what the real title should be. I've pinched that for the title above.
It's also misspelled.
You don't need the first 10 trendy technologies you can think of
I still have coworkers who think node.js is "hipster" and won't use it. Obviously, trendy is subjective.
Corollary: any great technology, the first 10 years they came out, were totally unnecessary. Internet in the 70s? Totally unnecessary for practical uses in the 70s and 80s. Cars invented in the 1880s? Also unnecessary.
>Internet in the 70s? Totally unnecessary for practical uses in the 70s and 80s.
ARPANET was necessary for rapidly exchanging data and compute resources among research labs, which precisely was what it was designed to do. It just happened to find way more uses beyond its initial goals, and evolved into the internet we know today.
ARPANET was necessary for rapidly exchanging data and compute resources among research labs, which precisely was what it was designed to do. It just happened to find way more uses beyond its initial goals, and evolved into the internet we know today.
What counts as a trendy technology? I’m sure tcp/ip was once trendy, as was HTML, RDBMS, etc.
My friend's boss won't let them use git because he doesn't want to switch to a "trendy" technology. Yes, git is still "trendy" in 2022 according to this person. I had never heard of the vc they currently use but my friend was not too keen on it to say the least.
Ironic how sometimes people embedded in tech can be the biggest luddites.
Ironic how sometimes people embedded in tech can be the biggest luddites.
Those other examples fall under the intersection of trendy, useful across a spectrum of scenarios, widely adopted, and in hindsight changed the face of technology itself. The comparison is apples to oranges....or a handful of peanut shells to the total population of orange trees to be more accurate.
Oh I remember the days when I was steadfastly staying on an IPX network and only temporarily changing over the TCP/IP to play specific games (Quake 1?). I didn't need this new-fangled TCP nonsense. IPX worked just fine on my 10-baseT coax network :-)
New-fangled??? TCP/IP predates IPX/SPX by about nine years.
I don't think these technologies ever had entire industries based solely on marketing and Ponzi schemes built around them.
I’m sure everybody has their own definition, but my definition of “not trendy” is some mix of “has been in use long enough that nobody tries to sell it as a cure all wonder technology” and “has only a minimal to moderate presence in the blogosphere”.
rdbms? I'm not ready to jump on that hype train just yet
These are the exceptions that prove the rule.
That's not how exceptions or rules work.
I was being cute with a turn of phrase.
A large majority of trendy new technologies in the software industry are driven by ephemeral industry buzz.
It takes time for us to collectively separate the wheat from the chaff. In the meantime it's generally wise to stick with what has worked in the past.
A large majority of trendy new technologies in the software industry are driven by ephemeral industry buzz.
It takes time for us to collectively separate the wheat from the chaff. In the meantime it's generally wise to stick with what has worked in the past.
You're misunderstanding how the word "prove" works. In this expression, it's being used in an archaic sense meaning "to test."
I also agree that not everything needs a blockchain or decentralized layers. And moreover agree that there is a giant amount of garbage on the chain.
However, can we take a moment to acknowledge how biased the crowd here is against blockchain? I know you’re tired of the buzzwords, but the other side is also tired of the hostility towards there maybe being something useful on the chain.
As the author has pointed out, things have evolved substantially over the last year and it deserves open and fair discussion.
However, can we take a moment to acknowledge how biased the crowd here is against blockchain? I know you’re tired of the buzzwords, but the other side is also tired of the hostility towards there maybe being something useful on the chain.
As the author has pointed out, things have evolved substantially over the last year and it deserves open and fair discussion.
It's a two cultures thing. Unfortunately, both of the cultures produce a lot of indignant froth, and since the internet is wired for indignation, that's what gets repeated over and over.
Since repetition is off topic here, we need to avoid this and stick to pathways that haven't fried yet.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Since repetition is off topic here, we need to avoid this and stick to pathways that haven't fried yet.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
It’s sad because there’s been so much progress in cryptography over the past 10 years, and now we’re nearing a point where a little imagination would go a long way.
It also has to do with very few posts about genuinely ground breaking projects.
I have personally found it rather difficult to tell the wheat from the chaff. If you have any suggestions on promising projects in the space then please do link me to it.
I have personally found it rather difficult to tell the wheat from the chaff. If you have any suggestions on promising projects in the space then please do link me to it.
Brave/BAT. Micropayments and a new model for advertising. It probably has the largest userbase in the crypto space.
https://brave.com/transparency/
https://brave.com/transparency/
It’s unfortunate how the entire blockchain ecosystem is overshadowed by overhyped scams and nasty hacks.
There are countless economy-changing experiments happening in the DeFi community. Rebuilding of Wall Street and insurance infrastructure being attempted on chain, where trust and centralization and scams or unfairness are ripe for disruption. Staking assets to provide liquidity pools has resulted in billions coming on chain.
Plenty of people are trying to make a quick buck. Plenty of hacks and bad engineering is happening. Most things don’t need a blockchain. I wish HN community looked deeper though.
There are countless economy-changing experiments happening in the DeFi community. Rebuilding of Wall Street and insurance infrastructure being attempted on chain, where trust and centralization and scams or unfairness are ripe for disruption. Staking assets to provide liquidity pools has resulted in billions coming on chain.
Plenty of people are trying to make a quick buck. Plenty of hacks and bad engineering is happening. Most things don’t need a blockchain. I wish HN community looked deeper though.
I personally haven't seen any problem solved by the blockchain thus far. However I do think the whole ecosystem is flooded with 'morons' who believe its just the solution to everything. Usually people who don't know what they're talking about and only thinking of the money side of it.
There is value in almost every new technology, I think blockchain and co haven't gotten a bad rap thanks to the 'morons' who are basically just 'pumping and dumping' or 'hyping' to make quick money. Which IMO is a shame because it stops the real innovation taking place.
It could be something, but it's been given (rightly so) a stigma thanks to the cult of 'crypto bros'. So far a waste of potential.
There is value in almost every new technology, I think blockchain and co haven't gotten a bad rap thanks to the 'morons' who are basically just 'pumping and dumping' or 'hyping' to make quick money. Which IMO is a shame because it stops the real innovation taking place.
It could be something, but it's been given (rightly so) a stigma thanks to the cult of 'crypto bros'. So far a waste of potential.
> I personally haven't seen any problem solved by the blockchain thus far.
I don't know that it counts since it's not a "blockchain" in the sense most people describe it, but Git is sort of "blockchain adjacent." It uses a Merkle tree to maintain a crytographically signed quasi-immutable ledger of transactions.
While it's probably not a "blockchain", I don't think that anyone disputes that Git (and its blockchain-like feature) is useful.
I suspect that this is going to be the "good" that comes from blockchain [1] and its ilk; a lot of interesting uses are going to pop up using blockchain concepts, and it will be cannibalized into something that is indisputably useful.
I agree that there are a lot of crypto idiots who act like all problems will be solved by Bitcoin or Ethereum, and I do think they give the legitimate research being done on blockchain (e.g. the Ouroboros protocol) a bad name.
[1] I know Git predates blockchain.
I don't know that it counts since it's not a "blockchain" in the sense most people describe it, but Git is sort of "blockchain adjacent." It uses a Merkle tree to maintain a crytographically signed quasi-immutable ledger of transactions.
While it's probably not a "blockchain", I don't think that anyone disputes that Git (and its blockchain-like feature) is useful.
I suspect that this is going to be the "good" that comes from blockchain [1] and its ilk; a lot of interesting uses are going to pop up using blockchain concepts, and it will be cannibalized into something that is indisputably useful.
I agree that there are a lot of crypto idiots who act like all problems will be solved by Bitcoin or Ethereum, and I do think they give the legitimate research being done on blockchain (e.g. the Ouroboros protocol) a bad name.
[1] I know Git predates blockchain.
> I personally haven't seen any problem solved by the blockchain thus far.
Solved problem: Hyperinflation caused by excessive governmental money printing.
Yes, I know you may not consider this as a "problem", but tell that to the millions of people who have had to watch their life savings being erased to zero value.
Yes, the Bitcoin price may be jumpy, but we aren't yet seeing kids playing with bricks of trillions of Bitcoins because they'd be so worthless that you can give them to your kids as toys.
That DID happen with fiat currency:
Enter "hyperinflation" into your favorite picture search engine.
I personally own a 1 billion bill of a previous currency of my country which I bought for the equivalent of $5 on eBay.
Solved problem: Hyperinflation caused by excessive governmental money printing.
Yes, I know you may not consider this as a "problem", but tell that to the millions of people who have had to watch their life savings being erased to zero value.
Yes, the Bitcoin price may be jumpy, but we aren't yet seeing kids playing with bricks of trillions of Bitcoins because they'd be so worthless that you can give them to your kids as toys.
That DID happen with fiat currency:
Enter "hyperinflation" into your favorite picture search engine.
I personally own a 1 billion bill of a previous currency of my country which I bought for the equivalent of $5 on eBay.
Hyper inflation is absolutely a problem. Not solved by the blockchain though..
I think you're referencing BTC in use as some kind of ubiquitous currency ? That would be an interesting use, until someone owns enough to influence the market, which, already happens, so it would make matters worse for more people
I think you're referencing BTC in use as some kind of ubiquitous currency ? That would be an interesting use, until someone owns enough to influence the market, which, already happens, so it would make matters worse for more people
> Owns enough to influence the market
Meaning acquiring it fairly from the market?
As compared to fiat currencies, which can be issued and moved around with the snap of a finger. That's a net improvement.
Meaning acquiring it fairly from the market?
As compared to fiat currencies, which can be issued and moved around with the snap of a finger. That's a net improvement.
> Not solved by the blockchain though..
Uhm, why not?
As far as I see, the price of Bitcoin has actually even hyperDEFLATED.
It started below $1! Now it is at $40000.
Uhm, why not?
As far as I see, the price of Bitcoin has actually even hyperDEFLATED.
It started below $1! Now it is at $40000.
Just wait until a 51% attack succeeds. I don't think the BTC network is as resistant to government interference as you may expect.
If they try to print more Bitcoin by changing the software that does NOT automatically mean that the majority of Bitcoin users will install and run that modified software.
The non-"print more money" version will reject its blocks.
So even if they throw 90% of hashpower at it then it will not be the consensus because nobody uses a version of Bitcoin which accepts the blocks it mines.
The non-"print more money" version will reject its blocks.
So even if they throw 90% of hashpower at it then it will not be the consensus because nobody uses a version of Bitcoin which accepts the blocks it mines.
If it brought a lot of value, people would be using it everywhere. If the name carries a bad reputation, people would just use a different name. (Naming never stopped the adoption of a technology; it being hard to apply has, but I'm not sure how much it applies to blockchain.)
The problem is that the "social ledge" value of a blockchain is hilariously expensive, to the point that governments look cheap in comparison. And a private ledge doesn't bring a lot of value into any application (but where it does bring a bit more of value, it is getting adopted, like version control systems).
The problem is that the "social ledge" value of a blockchain is hilariously expensive, to the point that governments look cheap in comparison. And a private ledge doesn't bring a lot of value into any application (but where it does bring a bit more of value, it is getting adopted, like version control systems).
> As the author has pointed out, things have evolved substantially over the last year and it deserves open and fair discussion.
I don't think you will get an 'open and fair discussion' here, even if you list examples like Stripe (Using blockchain for crypto payouts) [0] and Skiff (Using ENS for identities for their E2E decentralized workspace) [1].
When asked about this earlier, you get random incomprehensible replies like "CrYPtO IS SCaM" and admitting they haven't even looked at the article and either cannot answer basic questions or reply back with another question without given a concrete answer to the first.
Good luck getting an 'open and fair discussion' about anything crypto without someone screeching absolutist scam nonsense or some die hard crypto supporter / investor pushing their 'NFTs is the future' nonsense.
[1] https://skiff.org/
[2] https://skiff.org/blog/skiff-x-ethereum-naming
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31133074
I don't think you will get an 'open and fair discussion' here, even if you list examples like Stripe (Using blockchain for crypto payouts) [0] and Skiff (Using ENS for identities for their E2E decentralized workspace) [1].
When asked about this earlier, you get random incomprehensible replies like "CrYPtO IS SCaM" and admitting they haven't even looked at the article and either cannot answer basic questions or reply back with another question without given a concrete answer to the first.
Good luck getting an 'open and fair discussion' about anything crypto without someone screeching absolutist scam nonsense or some die hard crypto supporter / investor pushing their 'NFTs is the future' nonsense.
Don't fall in *either* of those camps.
[1] https://skiff.org/
[2] https://skiff.org/blog/skiff-x-ethereum-naming
[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31133074
The "bias" against blockchains is rooted in the fundamental nature of the technology combined with the breathless unsubstantiated hype that the enthusiasts project into the discourse. Blockchains have earned their bad reputation.
Which is weird because YC has made crypto investments.
Looks like around 11 [1].
[1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?query=cryptocurrency&t...
Looks like around 11 [1].
[1] https://www.ycombinator.com/companies?query=cryptocurrency&t...
Until they stop consuming more electricity than a big country, there is a moral right to be hostile toward them.
Please let's not repeat the same flamewar tropes for the ten thousandth time. Whether it's right or wrong, this level of repetition is deeply uninteresting.
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&sor...
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
the fact that so many capable humans have constructed this orgy of greed which is purely financial, at a time when the global economy actually requires massive definancialization, is of profound interest.
this is a huge distraction, and another way to divide people, and use tricks or marketing to cause them to act out of FOMO and greed.
it would be "interesting" if we were debating how to solve the supply line fragility, the need for soil, the need to keep the temperature down, the need to achieve some modicum of equality here in North America so that millions of intelligent humans dont become slaves and have their potential as inventors and scientists wasted.
who survives all this will not see your comment, probably, but the facile way that you declare these fundamental questions of survival as .... uninteresting ... makes me despair.
this is a huge distraction, and another way to divide people, and use tricks or marketing to cause them to act out of FOMO and greed.
it would be "interesting" if we were debating how to solve the supply line fragility, the need for soil, the need to keep the temperature down, the need to achieve some modicum of equality here in North America so that millions of intelligent humans dont become slaves and have their potential as inventors and scientists wasted.
who survives all this will not see your comment, probably, but the facile way that you declare these fundamental questions of survival as .... uninteresting ... makes me despair.
The thing to do with those large concerns is to post something interesting about them in their own right—not change a different thread to that subject. If they're as important as you say, there must be plenty of interesting things to discuss.
While the electricity problem does need to be addressed, do not be so quick to lump all blockchain users, advocates, and researchers into a single hideous glob.
There is value to be achieved, I think, in a more nuanced approach.
There is value to be achieved, I think, in a more nuanced approach.
I think it’s safe to say that the vast majority are a blob. There is a substantial overlap between users and advocates (shared interest in seeing <coin> “go to the moon”)… adding “researchers” here to lend some credibility to the blob is unfair to the researchers who probably make up < 1% (low figure in just tossing out there)… If there is “value to be achieved”, it won’t be achieved by speculators on coin prices…
I think the problem is that, at least in this area, the only people asking for more nuance are bitcoin supporters, and they aren’t open to nuanced reasoning for why people hate bitcoin. “Nuance,” to them, just means letting them win some of the arguments or admitting that some of what they say is not entirely bad. That’s not “nuance,” that’s appeasement.
Bitcoin has existed for about 13 years. Given its environmental impact, it's high time there was value beyond criminal money flow and gambling on exchange rates.
I thought the electricity usage was due to the 'mining' for new crypto, not for the actual blockchain that stores the 'ledger' of transactions.
Mining is what gives legitimacy to the records stored on the blockchain, what allows it to be "trustless". No mining, no blockchain.
They're inextricably linked by design. The "mined" bitcoins are the reward for successfully attaching some transactions to the ledger in a computationally expensive way.
While I agree, I don't think this should be a fair primary reason. Unless you also feel the same about everything else that consumes more electricity than it could.
There wouldn't be a concern if all energy was green for example, that should be where the energy hostility should be pointed. Trying to complain about the blockchain and its useage on power is an XY problem for me.
I don't know about any other thing that's literally designed to consume as much electricity as possible.
Consuming energy is a requirement for it to provide its stated benefits. If you're able to conjure the protocol which doesn't require PoW and still maintains the characteristics, you would be welcomed with open arms.
Many chains are already proof of stake, and many others are transitioning, including Ethereum.
Proof of stake only allows rich people to verify transactions, which seems to… contradict the goals of cryptocurrency.
Howso? Those people cannot pervert the actual transaction, they will be slashed, and the money I believe goes to the node who proves them wrong, as incentive (don't quote me). It remains completely decentralized and effectively ungovernable, which I believe is the primary goal of cryptocurrency. I don't think it was ever meant to address the "rich get richer" effect.
Also, the practical upshot of the previous dynamic was that only people who could afford thousands of GPUs/ASICs/FPGAs could verify transactions, so it was basically the same effect with more steps.
Also, the practical upshot of the previous dynamic was that only people who could afford thousands of GPUs/ASICs/FPGAs could verify transactions, so it was basically the same effect with more steps.
Stellar doesn't do this.
[deleted]
You don't use a wash dryer I assume. Or Christmas lights? Plugged out all standby appliances? Never drive a car? Working without a laptop?
Comparing energy usage of a global system with the total energy usage of a country is absurd, and people doing it should feel ashamed they didnt rationally think about what they said/wrote.
Comparing energy usage of a global system with the total energy usage of a country is absurd, and people doing it should feel ashamed they didnt rationally think about what they said/wrote.
The fundamental difference between (proof-of-work) blockchains and the examples that you mentioned is that (pow) blockchains not only must consume ever increasing amounts of electricity by their very design, but they also incentivise doing so as much as possible, the only limit being whether you can afford it.
Let's take Bitcoin for instance. I'm pretty sure that the electricity required to perform one single BTC transaction has grown by multiple orders of magnitude since Bitcoin first appeared, regardless of the possible efficiency improvements in GPUs or ASICs, and will continue to grow—hence, profitability will always scale linearly with the willingness and capability to waste.
On the other hand, dryers, Christmas lights, appliances, cars and laptops etc. have, if anything, all become more energy-efficient in the past decade, being able to perform the same funcion or better while using less power. On top of that, there's only so much washing you want to dry, or so many places you want to drive to—you don't want to indefinitely scale up the size of your dryer, or the number of cars you drive. And if you were to find a reason to scale up either of them, it would be because there is a business opportunity in providing a material service to customers, either laundry or transport. In that case, your profitability would be limited by how many people want their clothes dried or to be driven somewhere, and not just by how big you can afford the dryer or how many cars you can accumulate.
Let's take Bitcoin for instance. I'm pretty sure that the electricity required to perform one single BTC transaction has grown by multiple orders of magnitude since Bitcoin first appeared, regardless of the possible efficiency improvements in GPUs or ASICs, and will continue to grow—hence, profitability will always scale linearly with the willingness and capability to waste.
On the other hand, dryers, Christmas lights, appliances, cars and laptops etc. have, if anything, all become more energy-efficient in the past decade, being able to perform the same funcion or better while using less power. On top of that, there's only so much washing you want to dry, or so many places you want to drive to—you don't want to indefinitely scale up the size of your dryer, or the number of cars you drive. And if you were to find a reason to scale up either of them, it would be because there is a business opportunity in providing a material service to customers, either laundry or transport. In that case, your profitability would be limited by how many people want their clothes dried or to be driven somewhere, and not just by how big you can afford the dryer or how many cars you can accumulate.
How about we compare the energy usage of a single transaction against the entire home electricity costs of a two-person household, then?
A single bitcoin transaction uses more electricity than my apartment does in two months (at least during the spring).
A single bitcoin transaction uses more electricity than my apartment does in two months (at least during the spring).
A dish washing machine is useful. A clothes washing machine is useful. Christmas lights help celebrate a tradition that's important to billions of people, some of whom see deep religious meaning it. Cars are useful. Laptops are useful. As such, none of these things can be compared to blockchain. You're making an invalid comparison. To take one use case of blockchain, Bitcoin debuted in 2009. It's been 13 years, about half the age of the commercial Web. If blockchain was going to lead to something useful, then that would have happened already. Its failure to find a use case suggests that this is pure hype.
It is absurd, but such absurdity is needed to make the energy waste relatable.
You could compare a blockchain transaction's energy use to that of a credit card payment. But that would not convey the scale difference.
You could compare a blockchain transaction's energy use to that of a credit card payment. But that would not convey the scale difference.
I rather think there's well-placed skepticism (at least on HN) of the decentralize-all-the-things crowd. That crowd gets louder on a monthly basis and makes ever more grand and urgent pronouncements about the need to decentralize all the things. Since there are many open research problems with decentralization in programming, this leads to these posts having more than their fair share of magical thinking.
"We are building distributed filesystems" as a new(ish) practical user control is one such example. IPFS has been around for much longer than a year, so I'm not sure what the author means by "past year." Regardless, it is slow. Regardless, isn't privacy-preserving.
Perhaps the speed issue could be solved with improvements to the software. Let's imagine it's fast, then-- what are we going do with it? We can't house Scihub there-- otherwise the nodes replicating it will get hit with lawsuits. Similarly, we can't build a new Demonoid or any other sharing service that lets students and scholars pool together the various copies of reference materials that they own.
At the same time, college students are constantly bootstrapping all kinds of private content collections on private centralized services, and sharing it among themselves (and, unfortunately, not re-sharing it outside their group so these collections keep getting rebuild opportunistically), jumping from app to app as tastes for apps change. That's achieved with the current internet plus all the walled gardens that people use to get their work done. If our distributed filesystem cannot include the content these users are already sharing amongst themselves, then it's functionally equivalent to a hard-drive that won't allow writing based on certain content hashes. Moreover, if users still have to do cartwheels to use the distributed filesystem in a privacy-preserving way, they may as well use their current walled garden apps that are probably decades ahead in terms of UX.
Yes, blockchain certainly has its share of hot air from finance. But this pairing of blockchain plus decentralize-all-the-things overlays (which will be done baking real soon now!) is particularly prone to magical thinking. One because blockchain fans typically handwave scaling issues (or pivot to a non-blockchain approach which isn't functionally equivalent to blockchain), and two because decentralization zealots are prone to releasing vaporware.
I hope that clarifies things. I've certainly reacted on this list with hostility to low-effort blockchain pitches from people who have a clear conflict-of-interest. My hostility is probably like other people's here-- based in knowledge of the disappearing act that these magic-thinking systems can perform on the money of ordinary folks. That's real damage, and it's bad. The day someone makes a repo for "sloth sort" by pasting a jpeg of a sloth in a readme for sleep sort and performs a pump and dump scheme on it, I'll be sure to be hostile towards that, too. Meanwhile, people seem to only be doing that with blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. That more likely explains the hostility here than the idea that anyone is (unwittingly or otherwise) biased against blockchain.
Edit: typos, clarifications
"We are building distributed filesystems" as a new(ish) practical user control is one such example. IPFS has been around for much longer than a year, so I'm not sure what the author means by "past year." Regardless, it is slow. Regardless, isn't privacy-preserving.
Perhaps the speed issue could be solved with improvements to the software. Let's imagine it's fast, then-- what are we going do with it? We can't house Scihub there-- otherwise the nodes replicating it will get hit with lawsuits. Similarly, we can't build a new Demonoid or any other sharing service that lets students and scholars pool together the various copies of reference materials that they own.
At the same time, college students are constantly bootstrapping all kinds of private content collections on private centralized services, and sharing it among themselves (and, unfortunately, not re-sharing it outside their group so these collections keep getting rebuild opportunistically), jumping from app to app as tastes for apps change. That's achieved with the current internet plus all the walled gardens that people use to get their work done. If our distributed filesystem cannot include the content these users are already sharing amongst themselves, then it's functionally equivalent to a hard-drive that won't allow writing based on certain content hashes. Moreover, if users still have to do cartwheels to use the distributed filesystem in a privacy-preserving way, they may as well use their current walled garden apps that are probably decades ahead in terms of UX.
Yes, blockchain certainly has its share of hot air from finance. But this pairing of blockchain plus decentralize-all-the-things overlays (which will be done baking real soon now!) is particularly prone to magical thinking. One because blockchain fans typically handwave scaling issues (or pivot to a non-blockchain approach which isn't functionally equivalent to blockchain), and two because decentralization zealots are prone to releasing vaporware.
I hope that clarifies things. I've certainly reacted on this list with hostility to low-effort blockchain pitches from people who have a clear conflict-of-interest. My hostility is probably like other people's here-- based in knowledge of the disappearing act that these magic-thinking systems can perform on the money of ordinary folks. That's real damage, and it's bad. The day someone makes a repo for "sloth sort" by pasting a jpeg of a sloth in a readme for sleep sort and performs a pump and dump scheme on it, I'll be sure to be hostile towards that, too. Meanwhile, people seem to only be doing that with blockchain-based cryptocurrencies. That more likely explains the hostility here than the idea that anyone is (unwittingly or otherwise) biased against blockchain.
Edit: typos, clarifications
That went away quicker than fidget spinners.
But withouth a blockchain non of these applications can premine a token and... Eh.. PROFIT!!
You do … if you want investors…
You know what would be cool? Crypto without the blockchain baggage. Just a straight up virtual currency that’s not tied to central banks.
So, you don't like "central banks", but you still want a centralized party to control the currency? Otherwise, you need blockchain. Blockchain is just a consensus mechanism around data entries. If you want "just a virtual currency", bitcoin is that.
You don’t need a blockchain for that and blockchain wouldn’t solve that issue regardless.
Find a way to do that and you'll do very well. Right now, the only way to do that without trusting a central authority IS with blockchain tech, that's what it was designed for and why it actually became a thing that's stuck around for the past 13 years.
You can't have a trustless, decentralized currency without certain styles of blockchain tech. Otherwise you're just once again trusting a central authority with control of a database containing your balance.
You can't have a trustless, decentralized currency without certain styles of blockchain tech. Otherwise you're just once again trusting a central authority with control of a database containing your balance.
I love seeing delightfully ignorant hot takes.
Always good for laugh.
Always good for laugh.
Isn't that just WoW or Eve Online in-game currency?
Or Amazon gift cards?
Or Amazon gift cards?
There’s Taler: https://taler.net/
A key problem to solve is how to create a reliable source of truth for the currency. If not a traditional bank or ledger built on distributed consensus, then you're into the territory of inventing something new. It's a hard problem but I'd love to see it.
So a database of some sort I suppose...who is going to be the host/arbiter?
Or is there a non-blockchain way to run a currency system that has no central authority?
Or is there a non-blockchain way to run a currency system that has no central authority?
What would you like to tie the virtual currency to, if anything, and why/not?
I’d buy that for a dollar.
[deleted]
Oxford:
anarchy
noun
a state of disorder due to absence or nonrecognition of authority
But if investors are shoveling money at blockchain-based startups (I don't know if this is still the case), how do you convince young starry-eyed entrepreneurs that they don't need a blockchain?
Entrepreneurs don't need convincing, the investors do.
Entrepreneurs will go where the money is, and if foolish investors are throwing money at blockchain-based startups, savvy entrepreneurs will take their money, and they should.
Entrepreneurs will go where the money is, and if foolish investors are throwing money at blockchain-based startups, savvy entrepreneurs will take their money, and they should.
Exactly, you're getting at my point. Most of the anti-blockchain opinion pieces seem to be pointed at entrepreneurs or engineers. But how can you blame them for going where the money is.
But people with money want to throw money at blockchains, not databases.
So what's the winning strategy? Raise money for blockchains and then "pivot" to databases?
Then you'd also get the praise for being a "visionary" who knows where the market is going lmao
So what's the winning strategy? Raise money for blockchains and then "pivot" to databases?
Then you'd also get the praise for being a "visionary" who knows where the market is going lmao
> We are entering a new world with a new focus on giving users control over their data, their identity, and their systems
I don't think so. Don't listen to cryptobros telling you this is a problem everyday users have.
I don't think so. Don't listen to cryptobros telling you this is a problem everyday users have.
>Well then, you might ask, why are we running around logging in with email+password, or god forbid, Login with Facebook? Why aren't we logging into everywhere with public keys, if the technology is so old?
I'm a web3 enthusiast, and this is what cemented it for me as a proper successor to whatever we have now. Everyone agrees the legacy web auth is broken. Do you use the same password everywhere? That's low security, you must have a different password, preferably randomly generated, for each and every website, each having an arbitrary set of rules. It's a massive pain in the ass and leads to clicking a lot of "Forgot your password?", and pray to god the site you're using actually properly handles your password, or doesn't accidentally (or intentionally) log or leak your password. Yes, it's happened before, many many times.
Logging in via wallet, on the other hand? Connect your wallet, choose your account, and you're in. It's stupid simple to integrate on the backend too, and incredibly secure as long as you don't leak your 12 words (but even then, you can use a ledger if you want to be safe). It also works as an unified account across different websites. It's amazing. Public key cryptography for the masses.
I'm a web3 enthusiast, and this is what cemented it for me as a proper successor to whatever we have now. Everyone agrees the legacy web auth is broken. Do you use the same password everywhere? That's low security, you must have a different password, preferably randomly generated, for each and every website, each having an arbitrary set of rules. It's a massive pain in the ass and leads to clicking a lot of "Forgot your password?", and pray to god the site you're using actually properly handles your password, or doesn't accidentally (or intentionally) log or leak your password. Yes, it's happened before, many many times.
Logging in via wallet, on the other hand? Connect your wallet, choose your account, and you're in. It's stupid simple to integrate on the backend too, and incredibly secure as long as you don't leak your 12 words (but even then, you can use a ledger if you want to be safe). It also works as an unified account across different websites. It's amazing. Public key cryptography for the masses.
You don't need any of the blockchain stuff to support logging in to websites with a public key. That's straightforward with any old public-key cryptography scheme like PGP. In fact, from what I can tell, most of the "web3 login" implementations are doing little more triggering your wallet extension (e.g. MetaMask) to sign a unique message with your private key to prove you control an Ethereum address. It works well, and I rather like it, but the login part itself could just as easily be an old-fashioned PGP key pair.
>You don't need any of the blockchain stuff to support logging in to websites with a public key.
Well yes, I wasn't refuting the author's "You don't need a f%ing blockchain", but simply stating that IMO Web3 is already miles better than legacy web, even just for its main authentication system.
>That's straightforward with any old public-key cryptography scheme like PGP ... but the login part itself could just as easily be an old-fashioned PGP key pair.
This reminds me of HN's famous Dropbox comment.[1] Yeah, wallets are "just" public key cryptography, but it's easy enough for anyone to use and for developers to integrate. PGP is extremely convoluted in comparison, and to this day I have no idea how to sign a message with it without having to open up a guide. With metamask it's just two clicks.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
Well yes, I wasn't refuting the author's "You don't need a f%ing blockchain", but simply stating that IMO Web3 is already miles better than legacy web, even just for its main authentication system.
>That's straightforward with any old public-key cryptography scheme like PGP ... but the login part itself could just as easily be an old-fashioned PGP key pair.
This reminds me of HN's famous Dropbox comment.[1] Yeah, wallets are "just" public key cryptography, but it's easy enough for anyone to use and for developers to integrate. PGP is extremely convoluted in comparison, and to this day I have no idea how to sign a message with it without having to open up a guide. With metamask it's just two clicks.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
That's because GPGP and PGP both are arcane, bad programs. They are standards written in a time when it was somewhat normal to carry pocket protectors.
Sendthing is a reasonable, user friendly alternative to Dropbox. There will be a Sendthing for pgp one day...
Sendthing is a reasonable, user friendly alternative to Dropbox. There will be a Sendthing for pgp one day...
correct, PGP had 30 years to get broad user-facing adoption and failed outside of a few paranoid folks on email and setting up git or ssh on a new machine once. blockchains and their addressing namespace have very quickly propelled standardized interfaces for signing key pairs for people that don't even think about it.
Neither has anything remotely mistakable for broad user-facing adoption.
sure, to clarify, I would say if we had a way to count frequency of key pair signing before wallets, and after wallets, you would see a major adoption curve having occurred and continuing. I think that's a good thing because I think key signing is a good thing that needed better adoption and use cases. its ridiculous to think 'hm my users need a browser extension to use my application' but now since millions already do this, its great. thank you, profit motive.
Metamask has pretty broad adoption. Not quite "my mom" level yet. But it's gone far beyond techies on a fairly large scale, which PGP never really did.
People do not know GNUPG/PGP simply because they are IT-illiterate and those who can teach them, on scale, do profit of such ignorance. Sorry for being rude, but that's is.
The chain of trust concept is the simplest and most powerful concept of trust we have in the real world, it fail because most people still have issue understanding the difference between local and remote and understanding why privacy is a value. Blockchain is "popular" just because it's sold as a tool to make money and people who do not know think "let's try it". Nothing more.
It's pushed because IT giants (who are probably those who really invented the concept) feel to be giant enough to kick banking out and replace them in a classic EEE move [1] while locking users even more because we need banks mostly for comfort and by law, but we can use cash "by nature" while we can't use cryptos without computers (full of crapware, down to the hw, produced by very few giants at least for their core components) and connections (again owned by few giants). They are sold as free, and they are in theory, in practice they are very hard prisons, worst than those who they say they want to replace.
About web3: just try ZeroNet, is a kind of PopcornTime clone, instead of movies it share text, websites. Under the wood just the classic BitTorrent. Fast enough to be used, but certainly not usable by all on scale. The real decentralization we need is web 1.0 with today an IPv6 global for any device and PUBLIC registars who offer domains for free to Citizens JUST mediating eventual overhands, no third party resale allowed... It's not done like we do not push Usenet again just because those who know do want a surveilled and locked IT, not a really free one.
[1] and bankers known that well: https://voxeu.org/content/banking-disrupted-financial-interm... and also it's more recent evolution https://voxeu.org/article/digitalisation-and-future-banking
The chain of trust concept is the simplest and most powerful concept of trust we have in the real world, it fail because most people still have issue understanding the difference between local and remote and understanding why privacy is a value. Blockchain is "popular" just because it's sold as a tool to make money and people who do not know think "let's try it". Nothing more.
It's pushed because IT giants (who are probably those who really invented the concept) feel to be giant enough to kick banking out and replace them in a classic EEE move [1] while locking users even more because we need banks mostly for comfort and by law, but we can use cash "by nature" while we can't use cryptos without computers (full of crapware, down to the hw, produced by very few giants at least for their core components) and connections (again owned by few giants). They are sold as free, and they are in theory, in practice they are very hard prisons, worst than those who they say they want to replace.
About web3: just try ZeroNet, is a kind of PopcornTime clone, instead of movies it share text, websites. Under the wood just the classic BitTorrent. Fast enough to be used, but certainly not usable by all on scale. The real decentralization we need is web 1.0 with today an IPv6 global for any device and PUBLIC registars who offer domains for free to Citizens JUST mediating eventual overhands, no third party resale allowed... It's not done like we do not push Usenet again just because those who know do want a surveilled and locked IT, not a really free one.
[1] and bankers known that well: https://voxeu.org/content/banking-disrupted-financial-interm... and also it's more recent evolution https://voxeu.org/article/digitalisation-and-future-banking
I don't have any arguments against that, I just don't find the parts about IT-illiterate and blockchains being popular to be controversial.
Blockchains standardized an addressing namespace and proliferation of signing tools that are on the path to being ubiquitous. Other niches failed to do that. Speculation drives innovation. Blockchains have tradeoffs, the addressing namespace and signing doesn't actually use the blockchain or any consensus mechanism.
(address validation has to be done client side most times! some networks have added consensus level rules to add node level validation).
Blockchains standardized an addressing namespace and proliferation of signing tools that are on the path to being ubiquitous. Other niches failed to do that. Speculation drives innovation. Blockchains have tradeoffs, the addressing namespace and signing doesn't actually use the blockchain or any consensus mechanism.
(address validation has to be done client side most times! some networks have added consensus level rules to add node level validation).
It's not a tech reason: how many Ponzi's schemes you have heard on PGP/GNUPG?
That's why blockchains "are popular", it's not a matter of what they are technically, they can be even just a mythical entity, a person, a particles, they are popular because someone have advertise them as "a tool to make money" and than countless humans have immediately responded. Try to talk about some crypto-enthusiast: I'm pretty sure 99% of the will prove to have no idea of what technically the blockchain is, BUT they surely tell you many strategies and judgments on this and that investment opportunity with this and that crypto, normally materialized for them in some remote web-services, of course.
It's the same model that push "anti-radiation, anti-5G magic stickers&co" on the market. People have no idea on them, they have a fear, a desire, a need, so an emotion and they hear that such tools might satisfy such need/desire/emotion, if the entry barrier is cheap they'll try "just in case". It's nothing about the nature or technicality of the tool.
This very business is the old classic Eduard Bernays way to push things to the public: he push cigarettes crafting a new scientific journal who publish easily new real papers, than he spread it a bit in most famous doctors' offices, MDs read real studies on them and like the journal. They also read dummy studies about how healthy is smoking and they blindly trust them. At the same time on the public he manage to get some famous people to smoke in public, he say that smoking was about feminine emancipation etc something that any relevant cohort like to hear. A small summary of his campaigns is here: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/consumer
Crypto start in the same way: spread to some FLOSS cohort as a new project by a secret hacker, something to pique interest in those who represent the crème of the IT world, a bit later Ponzi's schemes for the general public, in the middle some spread in the business sector depicting how anything can be solved in a snap with the new exiting tech. A cohort see the interest of the others and global interest grow blind. We do not even know if the legend of some aborigines of I don't know which island have invented large rock to mark they financial transaction on is real or just a fabricated legend.
Try another point of view: what's wrong with the web? IMVHO:
- dependence on search engines, witch are so far a big&powerful only game, witch means that those big&powerful decide what we see or not on average;
- no easy entry barrier for those who want to produce contents, not just consume it. We have had and still have various "free hosted platforms", from the classic Geocities to Substack, but nothing individual and easy to access. We can easily publish on ZeroNet but how many know ZeroNet exists?
- lost of focus and software complexity, the web was about valuable contents who do not change much and many ask for, a usenet companion to avoid keep answering same questions all the time; now is mostly a software platform and nothing in the middle clearly define the right place in IT panorama.
Does web3 address any of these? IMVHO no.
What can solve these?
Well, first of all surely on the internet layer IPv6 with a static global per device for all, so we do not have NAT and dynamic IP issues, those who want can get a domain name and being easy to reach, others can still access their devices with pre-recorded static addresses. IP2IP calls are straightforward like filesharing especially with modern connections for those who have them etc. For the web part... A newborn Plan 9, witch means a new universal 9p modern protocol to mount remote resources with proper access level, the same for share files of any kind, so the same to see a streamed video, the same to send messages (just mount the target mailbox and save a file, the email was sent, namespacing ensure you can't read anything) or to read a classic web website, like one with pure CSS3+html5 and no js.
Do you want a newspaper? No need for a specific protocol and a specific server, the newspaper offer various access (free or paid) to relevant documents, you can even read them with your visual style easily, just overwrite the default CSS. No need separate feeds, they just grab the html without the CSS. The entire software stack for a modern web 1.0 will became so simple that we do not need modern WebVM no-one-but-some-giants can create/maintain.
Internet banking? No need from the bank side a crappy porcal with it's costs, just a common file format to talk to the client, relevant auth is part of the underlying system protocol, transactions are just signed text, like part of an XML stream. Customers can have their own favorite banking app with all their banks in one place, with all their history, notes etc integrated. Again a hyper-simplified software stack for much more results than now.
Nothing of the above proposals are in Web3. Nothing else in the end, just a smoky promise of being so powerful without details...
That's why blockchains "are popular", it's not a matter of what they are technically, they can be even just a mythical entity, a person, a particles, they are popular because someone have advertise them as "a tool to make money" and than countless humans have immediately responded. Try to talk about some crypto-enthusiast: I'm pretty sure 99% of the will prove to have no idea of what technically the blockchain is, BUT they surely tell you many strategies and judgments on this and that investment opportunity with this and that crypto, normally materialized for them in some remote web-services, of course.
It's the same model that push "anti-radiation, anti-5G magic stickers&co" on the market. People have no idea on them, they have a fear, a desire, a need, so an emotion and they hear that such tools might satisfy such need/desire/emotion, if the entry barrier is cheap they'll try "just in case". It's nothing about the nature or technicality of the tool.
This very business is the old classic Eduard Bernays way to push things to the public: he push cigarettes crafting a new scientific journal who publish easily new real papers, than he spread it a bit in most famous doctors' offices, MDs read real studies on them and like the journal. They also read dummy studies about how healthy is smoking and they blindly trust them. At the same time on the public he manage to get some famous people to smoke in public, he say that smoking was about feminine emancipation etc something that any relevant cohort like to hear. A small summary of his campaigns is here: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2009/12/consumer
Crypto start in the same way: spread to some FLOSS cohort as a new project by a secret hacker, something to pique interest in those who represent the crème of the IT world, a bit later Ponzi's schemes for the general public, in the middle some spread in the business sector depicting how anything can be solved in a snap with the new exiting tech. A cohort see the interest of the others and global interest grow blind. We do not even know if the legend of some aborigines of I don't know which island have invented large rock to mark they financial transaction on is real or just a fabricated legend.
Try another point of view: what's wrong with the web? IMVHO:
- dependence on search engines, witch are so far a big&powerful only game, witch means that those big&powerful decide what we see or not on average;
- no easy entry barrier for those who want to produce contents, not just consume it. We have had and still have various "free hosted platforms", from the classic Geocities to Substack, but nothing individual and easy to access. We can easily publish on ZeroNet but how many know ZeroNet exists?
- lost of focus and software complexity, the web was about valuable contents who do not change much and many ask for, a usenet companion to avoid keep answering same questions all the time; now is mostly a software platform and nothing in the middle clearly define the right place in IT panorama.
Does web3 address any of these? IMVHO no.
What can solve these?
Well, first of all surely on the internet layer IPv6 with a static global per device for all, so we do not have NAT and dynamic IP issues, those who want can get a domain name and being easy to reach, others can still access their devices with pre-recorded static addresses. IP2IP calls are straightforward like filesharing especially with modern connections for those who have them etc. For the web part... A newborn Plan 9, witch means a new universal 9p modern protocol to mount remote resources with proper access level, the same for share files of any kind, so the same to see a streamed video, the same to send messages (just mount the target mailbox and save a file, the email was sent, namespacing ensure you can't read anything) or to read a classic web website, like one with pure CSS3+html5 and no js.
Do you want a newspaper? No need for a specific protocol and a specific server, the newspaper offer various access (free or paid) to relevant documents, you can even read them with your visual style easily, just overwrite the default CSS. No need separate feeds, they just grab the html without the CSS. The entire software stack for a modern web 1.0 will became so simple that we do not need modern WebVM no-one-but-some-giants can create/maintain.
Internet banking? No need from the bank side a crappy porcal with it's costs, just a common file format to talk to the client, relevant auth is part of the underlying system protocol, transactions are just signed text, like part of an XML stream. Customers can have their own favorite banking app with all their banks in one place, with all their history, notes etc integrated. Again a hyper-simplified software stack for much more results than now.
Nothing of the above proposals are in Web3. Nothing else in the end, just a smoky promise of being so powerful without details...
[deleted]
This feels like the guy who said dropbox was useless because he has the ability to use rsync. Yeah the technology under Metamask is old, yeah it doesn't have to be connected to a blockchain (but it's damn convienent that it can). But it does it in a really user friendly way that has not caught on at the same level of mass adoption as Metamask has.
The great part of Metamask, is there's almost nothing proprietary about it. You could rip all the blockchain stuff out of it, and it would still work. If I wanted the blockchain stuff later, as long as it follows the standard.... I still could. Brave has it already integrated!
The great part of Metamask, is there's almost nothing proprietary about it. You could rip all the blockchain stuff out of it, and it would still work. If I wanted the blockchain stuff later, as long as it follows the standard.... I still could. Brave has it already integrated!
My argument is not "blockchains are useless because public-key cryptography long predates blockchains." My argument is "the existence of public-key cryptography does not imply that blockchains are useful."
I did not accuse you of saying "blockchains are useless because public-key cryptography long predates blockchains". I accused you of saying old fashioned PGP was user-friendly. It's not. It never caught on beyond tech users because it's too complicated for non-techies. My point was that Metamask has demonstrated the best UX yet to use public-key cryptography for everyday users.
>Everyone agrees the legacy web auth is broken
Only web3 enthusiasts with a solution in search of a problem agree with this. Auth has been a solved problem for years. Use a password manager. No need for blockchain nonsense. Next.
Only web3 enthusiasts with a solution in search of a problem agree with this. Auth has been a solved problem for years. Use a password manager. No need for blockchain nonsense. Next.
>Auth has been a solved problem for years.
Only web3 detractors with an allergy to blockchains agree with this.
You can mitigate the risks by using a password manager, but you can't argue that it's a solid system, come on now. You still have to trust websites to actually properly handle your credentials, and then hope for the best. Even with a password manager.
>Use a password manager.
If I need to use an external application to actually properly use the system, I might as well have that application use an actual proper system in the first place (public key cryptography), especially if that application also acts as your online de facto identity that only requires you to remember 12 words to access from anywhere.
>No need for blockchain nonsense.
Doesn't use blockchain. Next.
Only web3 detractors with an allergy to blockchains agree with this.
You can mitigate the risks by using a password manager, but you can't argue that it's a solid system, come on now. You still have to trust websites to actually properly handle your credentials, and then hope for the best. Even with a password manager.
>Use a password manager.
If I need to use an external application to actually properly use the system, I might as well have that application use an actual proper system in the first place (public key cryptography), especially if that application also acts as your online de facto identity that only requires you to remember 12 words to access from anywhere.
>No need for blockchain nonsense.
Doesn't use blockchain. Next.
I'm bear on web3 but you can't seriously say that with a straight face. The average person doesn't, won't, and in a way can't use a password manager, and measures like 2FA which mitigate weak password security still yield imperfect results.
If they won't use a password manager why would they use a crypto wallet? Adding public key cryptography to the mix almost guarantees the barrier to entry is higher.
This is true and I use LastPass but we are in the minority of users. LastPass and other password keepers are too onerous for the mainstream and require upkeep. The whole point of why web3 is the hammer everyone is trying to use is because of user adoption and buzz generated by crypto.
Isn't clicking on "connect your wallet" the thing that all the people that have lost their NFTs or coins to a scam URL have done that they shouldn't have done?
thats because they signed a transaction, obvious distinction as it is preparing to send money to authorize the scam. signing a keypair does not send money and doesn't use the blockchain, only the addressing namespace.
of course with the state of education on this topic being such wide and widening gulf, people are going to get taken advantage of with obvious distinctions that are not so obvious to them.
of course with the state of education on this topic being such wide and widening gulf, people are going to get taken advantage of with obvious distinctions that are not so obvious to them.
In other words: maybe using the same key for your wallet as for logging into random websites is not a good idea, and “web3” as an approach to identity has some real flaws that are being papered over.
Certainly involving more crypto in the issue of logging in to things might be a net benefit, but there’s no reason it should come from blockchain instead of, say, the password manager and totp token software people are already getting used to using and that don’t expose you to financial damage.
In the end though, people still need to get into their accounts when software is unavailable so it seems unlikely passwords are ever completely going away.
Certainly involving more crypto in the issue of logging in to things might be a net benefit, but there’s no reason it should come from blockchain instead of, say, the password manager and totp token software people are already getting used to using and that don’t expose you to financial damage.
In the end though, people still need to get into their accounts when software is unavailable so it seems unlikely passwords are ever completely going away.
every wallet has unlimited addresses, this is a user education issue alongside an implementation issue. if you feel there are some user interface and user experience things that can help, then the space is available for you to contribute to. thats what a lot of people are doing and it is very lucrative.
What did you mean by this?
> people still need to get into their accounts when software is unavailable so it seems unlikely passwords are ever completely going away.
Using a password uses software?
What did you mean by this?
> people still need to get into their accounts when software is unavailable so it seems unlikely passwords are ever completely going away.
Using a password uses software?
I don't really have any interest in solving a problem I don't think makes sense to solve? I fundamentally don't think "using your wallet to log in to your porn" is a good idea, and I don't think any amount of education is going to change that. There's just no reason this needs to be solved with blockchain. It doesn't add anything useful except that a bunch of people suddenly have private keys but don't know what they even really are.
Like I said, I think password managers and totp software are just inherently better positioned to 'solve' this (if it needs solving).
Also, I've long since lost any interest in participating get rich quick schemes built on fads, so "it's a lucrative space" isn't really the appeal you think it is.
> What did you mean by this?
Sometimes people lose their phones.
Like I said, I think password managers and totp software are just inherently better positioned to 'solve' this (if it needs solving).
Also, I've long since lost any interest in participating get rich quick schemes built on fads, so "it's a lucrative space" isn't really the appeal you think it is.
> What did you mean by this?
Sometimes people lose their phones.
> Sometimes people lose their phones.
Oh you mean based on the idea that people know their passwords? The password manager is a software too? How do you think people are using blockchains and their keys there? They may be using mnemonic phrases mentally and that also doesn't require using their phone to regenerate their private key (and also doesn't require the user having internet to sign something), seems to cover your criteria but if you can articulate what use cases you are imagining that might help. Mnemonics are supposed to be potentially catchier to memorize, but we/I/users can be realistic and back them up other ways.
Oh you mean based on the idea that people know their passwords? The password manager is a software too? How do you think people are using blockchains and their keys there? They may be using mnemonic phrases mentally and that also doesn't require using their phone to regenerate their private key (and also doesn't require the user having internet to sign something), seems to cover your criteria but if you can articulate what use cases you are imagining that might help. Mnemonics are supposed to be potentially catchier to memorize, but we/I/users can be realistic and back them up other ways.
Like I said, it's a choice. Everything that has been built has been because people channel their cynicism into an improvement. This particular space is inherently built to incentivize that, and thats what has occurred over the last decade and is only accelerating now that the builders are capitalized well enough to hire more builders.
Your mistake is assuming that your pet cause is the thing people should be channeling their skepticism-driven effort into.
You’re basically asking me to try to solve world hunger with car manufacturing. I can see the merit in solving the problem, and am perfectly happy to help contribute to solving it, but your chosen tool has literally nothing to recommend itself as a solution.
You’re basically asking me to try to solve world hunger with car manufacturing. I can see the merit in solving the problem, and am perfectly happy to help contribute to solving it, but your chosen tool has literally nothing to recommend itself as a solution.
> Your mistake
> Assuming
> You’re basically asking
I'm not assuming that. I'm not saying that. I'm not asking you to do anything so what mistake is possible?
I'm not forcing you to drink, I'm not even leading you to the water. I said, in a very pragmatic way, that being just a cynic is a choice.
The people that such cynics are criticizing are and were also cynics. The users on the other hand, go ahead and make fun of them, they don't know shit. The builders that led everything to the state it is were and are cynics. I'm only saying this is what people are doing and that's the choice they took, its available.
So its not really as divisive as you think when its cynics all the way down.
Find someone else to convince you why that choice is viable for you. Everyone knows your stance, I don't care about that axe you to have to grind, my role was what I said.
> Assuming
> You’re basically asking
I'm not assuming that. I'm not saying that. I'm not asking you to do anything so what mistake is possible?
I'm not forcing you to drink, I'm not even leading you to the water. I said, in a very pragmatic way, that being just a cynic is a choice.
The people that such cynics are criticizing are and were also cynics. The users on the other hand, go ahead and make fun of them, they don't know shit. The builders that led everything to the state it is were and are cynics. I'm only saying this is what people are doing and that's the choice they took, its available.
So its not really as divisive as you think when its cynics all the way down.
Find someone else to convince you why that choice is viable for you. Everyone knows your stance, I don't care about that axe you to have to grind, my role was what I said.
My god. You say I have an axe to grind, but I suggest that maybe there are better tools for the thing under discussion and I'm a cynic, making fun of users, tearing down the builders.
This is just ad hominem. You did indeed ask me to expend effort, whether you see it that way or not. If you want to build great things, you might want to learn how to listen to criticism and not just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is being mean.
This is just ad hominem. You did indeed ask me to expend effort, whether you see it that way or not. If you want to build great things, you might want to learn how to listen to criticism and not just assume that anyone who disagrees with you is being mean.
I make fun of users. I think they are fair game. The user behavior adds to other people’s cynicism. Thats the only relation.
I dont know if you make fun of users, its not ad hominem, I’m not looking at any of your other threads.
To me, this isnt a discussion about other technologies, thats why I’m ignoring your rebuttals if you would call them that, I know blockchains have tradeoffs and I dont care: Focus on what you can control and go where the customers are. I’m sticking with my supposition that cynics have a choice, thats the whole conversation to me.
I dont know if you make fun of users, its not ad hominem, I’m not looking at any of your other threads.
To me, this isnt a discussion about other technologies, thats why I’m ignoring your rebuttals if you would call them that, I know blockchains have tradeoffs and I dont care: Focus on what you can control and go where the customers are. I’m sticking with my supposition that cynics have a choice, thats the whole conversation to me.
I'm no expert, but aren't most of these scams the result of the user choosing to deliberately transfer their assets to another party because that party has convinced them they will get something in return? In other words, I think the victim is mistaken not about the fact that they're transferring away their assets, but rather is mistaken about the identity and intentions of the party they're transferring their assets to.
no. thats one kind.
many of these scams are erroneous approval transactions. an approval transaction is necessary for another program to use your assets. that program can have a human controller or another function that allows it to seize your asset later.
you can read more about this here
https://kalis.me/unlimited-erc20-allowances/
(NFT standard classes inherit the ERC20 interface)
many of these scams are erroneous approval transactions. an approval transaction is necessary for another program to use your assets. that program can have a human controller or another function that allows it to seize your asset later.
you can read more about this here
https://kalis.me/unlimited-erc20-allowances/
(NFT standard classes inherit the ERC20 interface)
> incredibly secure as long as you don't leak your 12 words
So what happens when you do? It sounds incredibly secure until you end up in a bad situation with no remediation.
So what happens when you do? It sounds incredibly secure until you end up in a bad situation with no remediation.
Actually LNURL-auth [1] has nothing to do with blockchains except that it makes it dead simple to use a Lightning wallet, such as Breez, to log in.
All it does is send a request, get a random string, sign that with the private key, and send it back alongside with the public key and the signature.
Yes, it works. Yes, it is simple. No, it has nothing to do with blockchains. Websites like http://stacker.news are using this.
See https://lightninglogin.live
All it does is send a request, get a random string, sign that with the private key, and send it back alongside with the public key and the signature.
Yes, it works. Yes, it is simple. No, it has nothing to do with blockchains. Websites like http://stacker.news are using this.
See https://lightninglogin.live
Bringing a blockchain along for simply logging in with public keys has to be peak cargo cult.
Sounds like https://webauthn.io/ would solve your problem. It's a real solution in use by a number of popular websites already. E.g. Cloudflare, ID.me.
This was solved in U2F, webauthn, or if you want other options there's Steve Gibson's squirrel.
Isn't this what OAuth solves?
"One of the most promising and new developments in recent years has been a renewed interest in building decentralized systems of all types. Many people are looking into building a system of decentralized identity and giving that control back to the users."
IE, decentralization is great, but blockchain type concensus building is rarely needed or useful in such systems imo.