Then some massive org like the NSA creates/captures 51% of the nodes and takes everyone’s money overnight.
Lot of comments don’t seem to understand that these words are not interchangeable
Setting the difficulty to use mode power level now below 50% the earth is saved
In a trustless environment…
You’re handing over your valuables at gunpoint, nerd.
I think you meant to reply to a comment and instead replied to the post.
No, I’m just mocking Blockchain idiots in general.
Do we have a buttcoin on Lemmy? We need a buttcoin
How old is the one on Reddit?
This is revolutionary
This is de-evolutionary!
…and, hear me out, that will be perfect for keeping messages untraceable by the government. Every single of those 200,000 computers will have full copies of all the messages ever transmitted, unencrypted, but they’ll never be able to tell who wrote them and who they were for.
For anyone who’s interested, Holochain solves this problem while fulfilling the decentralization promises of Blockchain.
Wow, I thought I was back on reddit with the tech fear mongering.
A single Ethereum transaction now uses only 0.02 kWh of electrical energy and has a carbon footprint of 0.01 kgCO2, which is much lower than the average values for a debit transaction or PayPal.
The blockchain is better than the stock market, that’s for damn sure.
All the assholes saying crypto is bad for the environment are completely silent about the amount of power that CBDCs will consume or the amount of power consumed by the stock market.
Do you have numbers to compare?
Nope, but they DO have silence and the ability to vanish.
no, I don’t. but all those computers that the stock market runs on certainly aren’t generating any electricity that’s for damn sure.
Distributed hashed linked list is so yesteryear. These days we’re into text autocompletion instead.
Autocomplete is the most important thing in your life.
That sentence was brought to you by autocomplete. Autocomplete, you know it and you can do whatever you need.
Hey, it’s not just fancy autocomplete!
Thanks to years of innovation, it’s now copyright infringement as well.
Call it whatever you like, it’s a pretty damn powerful tool.
I wish copyrights will die to this technology! <3
The thing is its only the copyrights of individual artists and creators that will die to this.
The big corpos will find a way to protect their value, just you wait.
They will steal from every single creative in the world and then sue them to hell and back if they use anything they them selves “own”
This is not a threat to the copyrights that you want to die.
You are a fool if you think copyrights can protect anyone but the big corporations.
Copyright are a cancer for mankind, they should disappear.
Well they do… But only barely and less so in the US lately.
There are still cases of small artists getting compensation for big business using their images or music without consent. But sadly it is far from the norm.
I agree with your core sentiment. Copyright is not working how it was intended and it is being abused by corporations.
It might be because I’m not American, or because I am a musician and songwriter myself. but I still see a point to having some laws protecting the rights of the creative mind behind something.
Removing copyright completely will only make it even more easy for the guys with the money and resources to exploit the small independent creators.
But (American) copyright is severely broken. This is true.
A starting point would be that the right is only tied to the specific creative(s) actually involved in the creation of something.
I can’t help but agree.
I hate things like patenting game mechanics and the RIAA throwing people in prison over mp3s, and everything Disney does.
But as an artist I’d also feel kinda, no, REALLY, shitty, if the second I put my human soul into something that got any kind of attention, it was (now legally) ripped off and everyone but me would make bank off of it.
Tshirts, plushies, videogames, a major corpo making a bugillion dollar movie. . .and very quickly nobody would even know I did it. But we still have bills to pay and all the rip-off sandfleas dropshipping my intellectual labor would say “Get a real job then lmao.”
How many games has Facebook or Zynga ripped off of small time creators and shoved them into obscurity just because they have the money and visibility?
Imagine how much it sucks to hear people describe your 5 year old work as “Oh that’s like a clone of that 2 month old Facebook game.”
Talk about punishing creativity. Everything would be like it is with AAA games and Hollywood now but worse: Trapped in a time-bubble of rip off fanfic of whatever hyper-consumer “fandom” that generation grew up with.
I think the people sincerely pushing this “eliminate copyright entirely” idea are the same “idea guys” that think prompting a robot will allow them to finally “tell their story” with the most minimal of efforts.
They’re fine with intellectual theft because the burden of forming one’s own personality not defined by consumption has already proven too great to bear.
…and their masterpiece will belong on the infinite trash heap of everyone else’s story that did the same thing…
TL;DR: Keep copyright. Fix public domain laws. Tighten the leash on corpos.
You don’t hate copyright.
You hate that entertainment megacorps have set up a massive toll booth between creators and audiences, thwarting their ability to connect and collaborate, and crippling the average person’s ability to meaningfully participate in culture unless it happens to be profitable for those in charge.
And soon you will hate that AI megacorps have set up a massive toll booth between creators and audiences, thwarting their ability to connect and collaborate, and crippling the average person’s ability to meaningfully participate in culture unless it happens to be profitable for those in charge.
What they did to us by forcing us to obey copyright, they will now do by disregarding copyright.
You can be pro-piracy because it distributes power, and be anti-AI because it consolidates it, without legitimizing copyright as a fundamental principle of ethics.
You are mistaken. I do hate copyrights like the plague they are, because they are chains for knowledge and culture. And I do not hate AI, but I hate corporations for taking technology, progress and their benefit to themselves and to oppress society, and this thanks to the secret they keep and copyrights.
Sharing of knowledge and culture is the solution, not the problem.
Clearly we see the word “copyright” very differently, so I’m wondering if it’s maybe a useless term for us here. I’ll get more specific about what I see as being valuable, and maybe we’ll see that we agree on some of it.
I like that the law, by default, obliges people to attribute works accurately. It helps me find the stuff I like, or to fact-check sources.
I like that the law, by default, obliges copies to remain faithful to the original. This is the other half of attribution. Attribution isn’t worth much if it’s not exactly what the original creator meant. That was a big problem in the period immediately following the printing press, and we already see it cropping up again with reactions/stitches/duets, and it’ll probably escalate with AI.
I like that I can eagerly share all of the shitty code that I write, slap a non-commercial share-alike clause on there, and know that it’s illegal (not that it doesn’t happen anyway) for a megacorp to shunt it off into a for-profit, closed-source venture. If I couldn’t do that, I might just not share it at all.
I like that I can – or at least, I used to be able to – find the person who made a thing I like, because the search results didn’t used to be an endless flood of copies/reposts of it.
I don’t like that the primary employment model for artists and inventors is to have them instantly assign all rights to their creations over to some holding company that doesn’t have a creative bone in its corporate body.
I don’t like that they often can’t even produce derivative work on their own dime in order to engage with the fanbase that they themselves built.
I don’t like the trend of “reaction videos” where a media group with clout and deep pockets can scoop the work of a no-name creator, say “lol” a few times or just leave a livecam of an empty chair, and rake in mad dollars while the person who did the hard work gets a mere trickle of support from the 0.0001% of viewers who bother finding the original.
I don’t like that a holding company can just sit on an IP and do nothing with it. I also don’t like that they can sell it to another company that will disrespect the creation as they milk it for every last dollar.
I don’t like that fans are often shot down or prosecuted when they try to make remixes or tributes to the stuff they love.
I don’t like that people who can’t afford to pay – or are just geographically in the “wrong” location – are cut off from accessing knowledge and participating in culture.
–
I don’t like tech bros treating culture like a raw material to be mined and refined, with no respect for the fertility of the soil in which it grew.
The stuff that I like… I don’t just like it because of what it is, but also because of who made it, and where they were in their life when they made it.
The fact that their viewpoint, at that moment, is inseparable from the artifact that’s a mere shadow of that moment… is part of what makes life worth living, to me.
What is “Fate of the Animals” without the wild story of Franz Marc’s fever dream, his subsequent death, the inscription on the back, the warehouse fire, and his friend’s restoration? Just pixels? The pixels are just the reference point. They’re the SHA256 of that story. Disconnecting the story, seeing just the hash… It does some kind of damage to humanity as an enterprise.
Well I’ll be a little more enthused if that would ever apply to regular people as well, rather than just people with several billion in VC money to buy lawyers.
I completely agree.
The philosophy behind modern copyright is completely out to lunch.
It doesn’t require that much computing power, that’s just a variable that gets set.
If the difficulty were set lower, one average computer could easily handle it.
Oh sweet. Let’s just set the difficulty lower, then.
But then every jabrony would be able to make money.
So, in other words, it does require that much computing power.
One variable, on 200 000 computers simultaneously.
Every time a transaction is made.
Which also means that the more blockchain gets used, the more expensive, slow and power hungry it becomes. It is doomed to fail and never be in worldwide use.
Compare it to something like AI, which gets exponentially better the more people use it. The same trajectory as the internet.
Which is why people are so horny for chains using proof of stake instead of proof of work
How does proof of stake not become more expensive, slow, and power hungry the more people use it?
The more people who use proof of stake blockchains the more power it will require, same as the more people who visit CNN.com or the more people who turn on a light bulb, but it’s not nearly as much as proof of work.
The difference between proof of work and proof of stake is that the first one in order to function requires showing that someone did a bunch of processing on their computer. By attaching a financial cost (literally expending energy) to mining new coins, PoW helps avoid someone fraudulently taking over the network and issuing as many new coins as they want.
Proof of stake works by people who already hold coins putting some of them up as a kind of collateral, so it’s nowhere near as processing intensive.
Compare it to something like AI
Probably good not to reveal how little you know about technology when making an argument regarding technology. I can’t stand these prompt kiddies thinking they know left from right.
Crypto =/= blockchain.
If you can’t see the utility of blockchain with regards to things like actual, verifiable digital ownership, then I don’t know what to tell you.
actual, verifiable digital ownership… using a distributed database technology that is designed to require a massive amount of computing resources to update.
I think where some of us who work in spaces using databases to verify something in critical business processes get stuck in accepting that blockchain has value is that our jobs have always been to verify “ownership” as quickly and efficiently as possible. We typically do this by defining a canonical source of truth and our success is judged on how many milliseconds transactions take and the datacener or cloud costs.
Saying that everything about blockchain is “dumb” isn’t a very nuanced analysis… but it’s a understandable reaction to hearing the hype that blockchain is going to change everything for years.
I’ve never seen anyone argue that the massively distributed nature or the public read access of blockchain technologies aren’t interesting. It’s the tradeoff that has to be made in speed and costs that make it hard for many of us to see any value in the approach for most applications.
Maybe it would be a good thing for the digital world to be free from the concept of ownership.
Reminds me of a device I heard about that just copies a music file and then deletes the copy and counts how many times that file has been copied as a commentary on the dialogue surrounding piracy
”Digital property is theft, comrade”
In which cases is this actually useful, as opposed to having a centralized database? Blockchain doesn’t provide the enforcement of ownership, which is the real problem.
It’s no surprise you don’t know what to tell us. It’s hard to get a mark to buy into a scam once they’ve realized what is was.
?
I want to see what you mean in practical terms, because the only other example besides questionable crypto currencies is NFTs and that was an epic lesson on what not to do. 😅
An NFT is a deed. Do you see any uses for a deed that is not in control of a central authority?
There are other uses. Like making a system that is interconnected and resistant to hacking. For example an interconnected traffic light system that can prioritize transit/emergency vehicles could be managed by a block chain to ensure the system stays in sync with itself for traffic flow/prioirty while being resistant to hacking or malicious activity.
This is a classic solution in search of a problem. The problem with stop lights isn’t that corporations control them, the problem with stop lights is that the general population thinks that cars are the only way to get around and demand that city officials optimize street and roads for cars. Adding a bunch of crazy verification steps will not solve this problem.
This is another social problem that technology just can’t solve.
How does adding more computers, more points of failure, make infrastructure less prone to exploitation?
Because it’s a trustless system. In order to override the system you have to take over 50% of the nodes, and in large enough systems it’s infeasible to get that much compute power. This means that no one person or organization can actually control the destiny of the system, only the consensus can.
I can’t believe that here, in the fediverse of all places, we need to have a discussion about the benefits of having a system that corporations can’t control.
Ok explain to me the advantages of a decentralized traffic light system that controls public traffic on public streets?
What advantages does a blockchain traffic light system have over a centralized server controlled by those who are responsible for maintaining the physical hardware?
Nah that one makes perfect sense to be centralized. I’m saying in general you’d want a system to be decentralized if you want it trustless.
It’s almost like different types of systems have different requirements, and a communication platform benefits from decentralization, where traffic lights and vehicle routing does not.
Who controls the streetlight blockchain in your idea? You think the government is going to responsibly manage a system that is large enough to be impractical to alter? My local government is barely responsibly enough to manage basic utility maintenance, we’ve had 3 water main bursts in a month and it hasn’t even been below freezing that whole time.
I can’t believe a human being living in the world doesn’t see that any implementation of a secure blockchain requires massive funding for infrastructure. That money comes from 1 of 2 places, illegal enterprises that maintain control for security and manipulation, and legal corporations that will maintain control for financial security and manipulation. Modern governments don’t run projects like this anymore, they contract them out to corporations.
Keep in mind that the only practical use of blockchain that anyone has found so far, has been as a currency that requires no ID. The most famous use of these currencies was by John Mccaffee, who used crypto currencies to help him evade authorities for nearly a decade. So I don’t have much faith in a technology that has only shown a benefit to criminals with so much money that cash becomes impractical. Nor do I have to remind you that wealthy private individuals have been able to manipulate crypto markets with hilarious ease, like how Musk pumped and dumped Doge Coin years ago with a single tweet and most likely made millions in private, untraceable money.
Just because something sounds cool on paper, and makes it seem like it skirts governments and corporations, doesn’t mean it works in practice. Large entities inherently have more resources, and are primed to steal new technologies for their own use, especially when implementing that technology requires huge funding for infrastructure.
Yeah I realize now I responded to a thread about traffic lights instead of systems in general. Obviously centralized systems are far superior for that.
No, NFTs do have good uses, but things like image NFTs are just a misappropriation, like SPAM is to email.
One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights. Movie rights for a book adaptation for instance moving between companies in IP sales and mergers/acquisitions.
"Intellectual Property[sic]" is dishonest loaded language, but yes, I agree with you that blockchain could be a good way for a copyright holder to prove their monopoly. 'Course, that’s also what registering your copyright with the Library of Congress is for, so…
One use case, is clear, independently verifiable ownership of non-tangible things, like Intellectual Property rights.
Why is your system better than the existing one?
I thought of that problem the moment when they started explaining their use case. I had no idea there is a name for it, kinda cool. If the blockchain people have a real solution for it, it would be a pretty big deal
It’s a term from copyright. The First Owner of a work is usually the person who makes a work, and they can then do all sorts of things with that.
IP rights is not a problem that needs solving. In fact, the existing legal system has ways of punishing copyright violations whereas the Blockchain does not.
Supply chain validation is also an example of the block chain “in action”. But the people that are entering the data on the Blockchain are the same people that were typing it in an email yesterday.
I used to be a fan of the technology as well but so far it hasn’t show itself to be useful. A solution in search of a problem.
No, NFTs do have good uses
I hear that now since 12 Years. Its not going to happen.
The perfect use case is tickets to live events. One entity creates one NFT for each seat or spot available and can initially sell them. The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.
Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.
Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.
What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can. Those tickets will only be accepted if a single transaction has taken place.
Duranium-on-the-Mohs-scale hard pass. Tickets work fine.
What’s baffling to me is the ramping up of the 21st century penchant for mindless wheel-re-inventing.
That is an absolutely TERRIBLE use case because it is by definition centralized. The venue already has ample control over who tf gets in and there is little problem with counterfeit tickets.
Why this hasn’t been done is pretty baffling to me.
Because the blockchain needs an incentive. Who is going to be taking part in the blockchain if there is nothing in it for them? That’s why these tokens are often tied to crypto currencies, as mining is the incentive.
Yeah why would ticketmaster, who makes a killing having their ticket monopoly and control, develop a system where they lose control?
The sounds like scalpers paradise. They can buy multiple tickets and sell it without thinking about any authorization (id card or something) when using that tickets
The owner of that NFT (ticket) can then do whatever they want with it without the need for a third party (Ticketmaster) to scalp the shit out of any subsequent transactions.
How is that supposed to prevent scalping, exactly?
Proof of ownership of a single ticket at the time of the event is the end goal, which is what NFTs do.
And that’s better than physical tickets, because…?
What’s better, is if artists want to provide a subset of tickets that are not resellable they can.
That’s also already a solved problem: write a name on a ticket and validate that name with an ID.
And that’s better than physical tickets, because…?
paper tickets are relatively easy to counterfeit, especially for the purposes of selling the counterfeits as scalped/unwanted tickets.
Again: that’s a solved problem with holograms.
Just responding to the “scalping” quote. It absolutely wouldn’t stop scalping, what I HOPE op was trying to say was that it could be used to prevent Ticketmaster, or any entity like it, from charging fees on every exchange of said ticket.
Would it? Or would Ticketmaster just buy all the NFTs and then have even less regulation on their scalping?
That’s not a perfect use case for it. That’s a central authority (venue) selling tickets to anyone who wants to buy them. But instead of using a local database and approving transfers from person to person and losing the ability to reverse transactions due to fraud, it’s hosted in the wild west of crypto.
There’s nothing stopping a venue from offering your perfect use case in a centralized system, but they outsource it to Ticketmaster (namely because Ticketmaster owns like 80% of music venues or something) so they don’t have to deal with it.
Your scenario outsources it to the block chain, who will charge gas for the transactions instead of ticketmaster charging fees.
Without really having an opinion on the matter - I think there’s a difference in having a use and being adopted.
Something can be absolutely awesome in theory but useless if no one is using it.
Yeah I think a lot of people don’t understand that “good for x problem”, “better than existing solution”, and “switching to this solution is better than staying with the existing solution” are three vastly different things
Blockchain fails because switching to it is consistently worse than sticking with current solutions, and often it fails at being better than current solutions in the abstract
That just sounds like you’re describing me.
I don’t know the value in a decentralized IP rights system. If the key holder gets phished, you can lose your rights to a TV series you’ve been working on. (Like Seth Greene)
He wouldn’t have lost it and had to pay back the ransom in a traditional contract. Having a contract centralized and enforced by the legal system has many perks and I can’t ever see how a decentralized rights platform can enforce itself.
And it’s ALWAYS the same problem. You can have all the lists you want. A central authority has to recognize and enforce that list. At which point, the structure of your list is completely irrelevant. It could be ANY list. What matters is that it’s chosen to be enforced. And currently, most power structures are happy with plain old databases. Or pen and paper.
A plain old database also has ways of dealing with theft.
If someone steals your crypto keys and sends your assets to themselves, they have no legal ownership over those assets but they’re listed as the owner in the blockchain, so blockchain isn’t even any good at being an accurate, verifiable record of ownership.
Yes, you can’t make changes to the blockchain, but that also means you can never fix anything. So you actually can’t rely on the blockchain to be accurate.
How about first we see a version that isn’t a scam? We’ve seen plenty of scam versions so far.
Imagine if you will… the dollar (cash) was invented today, up until now all there was was long-established crypto currency.
Suddenly there’s all sorts of scams where crooks trick people out of their dollars. Others are getting straight robbed and have no recourse to get their cash back. Cops often don’t believe you as you have little evidence of the $1000 you just had. Yet others are getting scammed by “banks” that disappear soon after accepting deposits as there is no state regulation.
What you’re seeing is not a problem inherent in crypto-currency or blockchains, it’s a new tool. Many new tools are used most effectively by “the bad guys” first. Even look at Mp3s, the first 5 years of their existence their purpose was basically to rob record companies. Are mp3s a scam?
Don’t let banks and authorities convince you that one of the most effective weapons against them is a scam against you. You don’t think the banks are telling you the truth… this time… right?
I’m looking at the current evidence, not “what banks are telling me”.
Digital ownership on one (1) blockchain. Not really that great when you put it like that. What makes one Blockchain more authoritative than another? Even in a closed system, if you think the admins of these chains don’t keep a kill switch in their back pocket specifically for their advantage in ownership conflicts then you should probably read about Ethereum Classic. Even if they don’t want to hard fork, if a chain is controlled entirely by a company, then they can edit it however they want regardless since it’s not really decentralized. The idea that Blockchains will empower the customer with digital ownership is silly to me.
Is a chain is controlled by a single entity then it’s not a blockchain, it’s a linked list with extra steps.
The whole point of a blockchain is that it’s independently verifiable/validated by all its users. Anything else is a literal scam.
Well, a blockchain is a linked list with extra steps. Only having 1 entity just means it is centralized, not decentralized.
You’ve almost put all the pieces together. A decentralised linked list is … ? oh wait
A decentrailized linked list.
You were supposed to have the eureka moment where you realise that’s not a thing, oh well.
A Blockchain is already just a linked list with extra steps.
Who do you think controls ETC? IOHK? It’s an open-source project.
It had some 51% attacks a few years ago, is that what you are referring to?
I’m honestly just curious what you mean
No, I’m referring to how ETC came about as the result of a huge scam that caused the whole Ethereum project to be forked. The original Ethereum was supposed to be immutable, but this conflict clearly showed that wasn’t true, and there were still people pulling the strings who were too big to fail.
Not anything new to someone who’s very familiar with the project, but emblematic of the promise of crypto vs the actual product.
Then I guess you misunderstand that the hard fork resulting from the DAO hack was the result of consensus of the network participants, not a unilateral action taken by the Ethereum foundation. Indeed, the protocol facilitated that’s the only way it could happen.
The historic source code is still hosted, if you think ETH devs have the ability to ‘edit whatever they want’ then you should be able to point to the lines of code where that ability is afforded to them. Or someone should, 8 years should have been enough time to have a flick through.
Your anti-ETH comment came across as an anti-ETC comment to me, that’s why I responded. I stand with you in disagreement with the 2016 hard fork. Mostly because many people would lose money anyway, and did. ETH corrected 50+%.
ETC is literally the original chain, sans Ethereum foundation’s branding (which is why your reference to it confused me). Founding members left and continued to support ETC, and went on to found other foundations with a basis in academic rigor, which formed the fundamental basis of the ideological disagreement between participants.
You said this showed ETH/ETC devs have a ‘kill switch in their back pocket’, but the part of Ethereum that was ‘killed’ is alive and much larger than it was in 2016.
My point wasn’t for or against any particular chain. It was just pointing out that crypto isn’t really immutable when applied to real use cases, and is only as decentralized and democratic as power brokers in the space want it to be.
I’m pointing out that the DAO hack transactions are not muted on ETC, they still exist as transactions in a validated block on that chain. Whether its state of mutability exists in binary or on a spectrum, ETC is shown to be immutable using your criteria, further showing that it’s not as simple as “crypto isn’t really immutable”. Different chains, even directly originating from the same project, have different characteristics with respect to mutability. It’s not to say that ETH is worse and/or better than ETC, or that either of them are good, it’s just what’s been observed as a matter of record, contrary to your depiction
My point is that in a mass-adoption scenario where blockchains are controlled by large entities, they will absolutely use these characteristics to their advantage, and because of how crypto is structured it will be much more oppressive and favored towards existing powers than more traditional methods that allow for greater flexibility and a more diverse set of use cases. That’s why some of the biggest holders of crypto are the same corporations that caused the '08 subprime loan crash.
A blockchain is only as secure as the amount of work (= processing power) that goes into it. Anyone with 51% of the processing power invested in a blockchain can attack it and essentially steal from other people. For cryptocurrencies it’s a problem that solves itself, because every person that possesses some of the cryptocurrency is incentivized to mine to keep it secure (and to earn some at the same time). The more your cryptocurrency is valuable, the more people will want to mine it and the more secure it will be.
For anything other than cryptocurrencies, you can’t incentivize a huge number of people to commit computing power to secure your blockchain. So you have to protect it some other way, for example only allowing you and some trusted people to write on it. But then it doesn’t really need to be a blockchain anymore, just a write-only database (which will perform better and occupy less space).
If it requires no work to generate a block at the end of your blockchain, any attacker can generate malicious ones.
the problem that bitcoin “solves” is mathematically unsolvable. The only reason it kind of works is because participants are human, and therefore are able to assign arbitrary value to the currency, and therefore can act greedily to try to maximize (and protect) their coins. Participants are only incentivized to participate in mining because the thing they’re rewarded with is a “currency” (something they value, as humans).
For anything but a currency, what is the incentive of miners using their resources to handle your transactions?
IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.
I think all else can be achieved more efficiently by using a trusted third party write-only database, such as the ones available on AWS, and you’d also have the benefit of being able to go to court to seek relief. Some blockchain markets are basically reinventing banking systems and preexisting financial law - systems that have been built over centuries and have quite a bit of knowledge baked in.
I do like the shift to proof of stake from proof of work, but this tech is silly to me.
I know of one use case that seems viable, there is a digital housing market service in my country (called Dias). It uses blockchain to verify transactions related to selling and buying houses. That includes proof of sales, ownership, bank transaction status etc. The blockchain is operated by all the major banks. Their incentive is that it increases the security of the transactions thanks to the immutable digital trail, and also the fact that no single entity owns the “database” so no entity can alter it, or skim service fees etc from the others.
But if you have any conflict with it, you have to get a lawyer involved right? It doesn’t seem like it provides value to a real estate transaction, just seems like a use case for block chain
Proof of stake, while better for the environment compared to electricity-guzzling proof of work, actually shift the power of consensus to capital owners. In proof of work, any bloke with some computing power can participate in the swarm even if they don’t own any crypto. In proof of stake, only those who own some crypto can participate in the swarm, and those who own more have more say.
You can say that proof of works also requires capital to buy computing power, but with the shift to proof of stake, the bar to participate has been raised. If can’t just use a spare computer to join now, you actually need some capital to buy some stake before you can participate. It’s a big boy club now, a tool to help the rich get richer.
To add: mining profits are minimized with difficulty adjustment, but there’s no such mechanism with staking - profits are maximized instead.
IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.
If the friction of translating your fiat money into cryptocurrencies and back is low enough it can be a very good method for collecting digital donations. Potentially no fees to send/receive money, no real national restrictions to speak of and then its stored as a value that the recipient can use however they want, plus donors can trace where the money goes if the person they donated to then turns around and donates a portion to another person receiving donations on the blockchain.
Basically the exact same benefits as the use case of illegal transactions, but at least for good rather than usually-not-good
IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.
YES!!!
The only thing you’re not getting quite right is what it means to be “illegal” and whether the groups making this decision have anyone’s interest in mind except their own.
When doing right is or becomes illegal because our country is run by a fascist, that “illegal” money will save lives.
At first I read “200.000” as a particularly precise float, and laughed at the absurdity. Then I realized he meant “two hundred thousand” and it came full-circle from comedy to tragedy. :(
Consensus algorithms lie at the foundation for a great many of the backend systems our internet depends on, massive scaling would be a near impossibility without them. – me, a 25 year backed engineer
It makes absolute sense that a massively scalable trustless system involving money would use a consensus algorithm with a large number of nodes.
massive scaling
Uh, yeah, after guzzling electricity like a small country, I’m sure bitcoin has massive scaling. Ability to process 9 transactions per seconds counts as massive scalability, right?
I assume you’re speaking Bitcoin, cryptocurrency that uses Proof-of-Work consensus.
Proof-of-Work is very secure, super decentralized, but it’s the culprit behind mining and subsequent electricity drain.
There are other consensus mechanisms, like Proof-of-Stake, to which Ethereum, Solana and many many others have migrated to or were based on to begin with.
Proof-of-Stake requires about 100x less electricity, is reasonably secure and is the default option for modern cryptocurrencies. Thereby the energy argument gets less and less relevant, while the fuss around it is only gaining speed.
Ethereum doesn’t seem to have great TPS either ( ~15 transaction/s ), and talks about improving TPS seems to have quiet down.
You have something like Nano that hits around 50 TPS and also uses proof of stake. Transactions are basically instant and it has no fees. It was always my favourite in terms of crypto personally.
I think most eth-based transactions happen on different layers and then get settled on the main layer periodically. Same with Bitcoin, come to think of it. TPS doesn’t seem like a particularly useful number these days.
Ethereum is a Layer-1, which is focused on super ironclad security and eternal preservation. It’s more of a catalogue than a practical way to transact. Now, Layer-2’s on the backbone of Ethereum (Polygon, Arbitrum, Optimism, etc.) are able to handle thousands of transactions per second.
For example, Polygon has a capacity to conduct up to 7200 TPS (while practically being used to the tune of 50 TPS simply because people don’t actually need that much currently).
If you want Layer-1 that is focused on speed, there’s Solana, for example, with 300.000 TPS and potential for 710.000.
This problem is essentially solved for everyday applications. The reason Bitcoin and Ethereum has such a low TPS is that they’ve never focused on TPS to begin with, instead opting for the most hyper-secure networks people store value in. I’m not saying Polygon or Solana aren’t safe - they’re perfectly fine - it’s just that Bitcoin and Ethereum have laser-focused on that aspect, making compromising the blockchain even by biggest of institutions entirely off the table.
It makes absolute sense that a massively scalable trustless system involving money would use a consensus algorithm with a large number of nodes.
Whoa whoa whoa. I suppose you didn’t get the memo:
,but the rule is to blindly hate any kind of technology that any one has used in insalubrious ways, in-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.
In-spite of its potential for liberation and independence.
When it shows that potential, maybe more people will get on board. Until then there are a host of problems that make a ton of people not want to touch it including but not limited to:
-
a) Capitalists and scammy chucklefucks are already exploiting it the way they do with traditional currencies, except in sometimes new creative ways because of either the lack of regulations or because the technology inherently makes it impossible to trace. I don’t see that changing in a fully crypto world either, because people are always going to need financial services like loans and insurance on their savings and the banks will always have the imbalance of power.
-
b) The currencies mostly benefit people with a ton of capital to handle consensus, which further entrenches the power imbalance found in (a).
-
c) Insane amounts of resources are needed to reach consensus in a way that is not good at all for the environment. Sure we already use a lot of power to make our society run. But crypto is asking for more ON TOP of that, compounding the issues.
-
d) Relying solely on crypto leaves people destitute if their wallets got hacked.
-
e) Chucklefucks are using the technology to commodify and break the best part of the digital world which is the ability to have bit for bit reproducible copies of information.
Fix all of that and you surely would get people on board but I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.
Fix all of that and you surely would get people on board but I have yet to hear compelling solutions by cryptobros.
I actually completely agree with all of your points. I also hold out hope for the decentralization of power, which is something I still think block chain and crypto have a role in. Its the same hope I have for the fediverse, that we can all ‘own’ or be a part of a broader solution through self hosting, development, and funding the projects we care about or think will make a difference.
I thought crypto had that potential, but because its looked at as ‘money’, the worst of the worst kinds of people steered its coarse. I still think the principals have this potential, and in more mature versions, I expect them to be realized. And arguably, they are being realized. In-spite of all of the shitcoins and scamcoins, bitcoin, the OG, is still extremely strong. I have no reason to believe that a bitcoin purchase made today wouldn’t still be considered as good of an investment as SPY was 8 years ago. I also think the generally dismissive tone of the case against digital currencies as scam is a little hilarious, considering that literately 90%+ of stocks admitted to the NYSE end up with a similar if not worse fate than the majority of (major) coins from the big boom we saw through 2020. A few stocks stay valuable throughout time, but that’s rare. Most end up valueless and eventually are delisted.
I think criticisms of digital currencies, especially decentralized ones, need to be put into the broader context of all financial vehicles that exist and are available. Likewise, crypto has potential outside of just digital currencies, and the insistence that its bad for the environment, well that’s largely solved outside of bitcoin, and likely will never be solved for bitcoin. I still think its a neat technology with some interesting use cases. I’ve enjoyed watching it evolve and grow so far and I’m excited to by the belief that there is some potential for interesting things to come from that space in the future, especially if they support a more decentralized, anonymous, and democratic internet in the future.
-
Oh good Lord, I was partially inclined to agree but using generative Ai to make this point tells me everything I need to know.
If that’s your make or break, go ahead and break. No real loss if that’s your breaking point.
Couldn’t even be assed to fix the text of the main focus of the picture?
I’m working bruh, how much time do you expect me to put into a throw away meme?
More that the barest minimum, at least.
Fine, Dad.
There I fixed it.
