you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 180 points 9 months ago (84 children)

sigh

Once again:

Blockchain is not synonymous with cryptomining

Blockchain does not require proof of work

Cryptocurrency and NFT grifting does not devalue blockchain as an immutable distributed ledger

I swear to god people just copy paste whatever makes them feel good without any effort at understanding

  • source
  • hideshow 84 child comments
  • [–] 91 points 9 months ago (12 children)

    True... But Satoshi did invent Bitcoin, which is proof of work, and is everything in OP

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Doesn't have to be cars.

    I'm just saying the original post is conflating criticisms against a particular implementation of blockchain with all blockchain.

    "The wright brothers invented a useless machine they called the airplane. It only held one person and could fly for only a limited duration. It was also extremely dangerous."

    That'd be a silly sentence, would it not?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    This is a good comment that makes all good points. But I just wanna say let's stop saying "blockchain" singular and with no preceding article like we're tech CEOs and it's some immutable god. They're blockchains, plural, like any other data structure there can be more than one and there are. eg The blockchain of ethereum is distinct from the blockchain for bitcoin but they are both blockchains.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Valid point! But then how do you refer to the data structure/architecture/model concept? Sometimes we want a concise term (like bittorrent or ActivityPub) for the abstraction

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    It's a novel data structure, we can refer to it like we do other data structures: Linked lists, hash tables, primitives. The branded implementation of these things is what we typically make singular: Bitcoin, ethereum, monero (bittorrent, activitypub...)

    Bittorrent implements a torrent swarm, activitypub implements a federated social network.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    Blockchain is not synonymous with crypto. Why are you bringing up crypto specifically? Crypto is garbage. But Blockchain is not crypto

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Critical mass is not required for internal systems. Not all implementations of blockchain are intended for public use.

    I'm really tired of this. Blockchain. Is not. Crypto.

    Here's the research I did for everyone four months ago: https://lemmy.world/post/36683795/19677963

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    I'm not convinced there's any internal use for blockchain. Internal implies under a specific umbrella, some overarching organisation, who can then be the central trusted server that makes blockchain unnecesary.

    That said, non-public but open uses, such as tracking dealings between companies in markets with little trust and no single governments (the shipping example in your referenced comment) is indeed the thin slither of a plausible use-case.

    Another limitation is that blockchain loses its benefits if anyone tries to design over the complexity of using it directly (using a ui that under the hood uses blockchain is no different to using a ui that talks to a central database, you're trusting the central ui provider, you need to (at least be able to) build your own interface to realise the benefits of blockchain.

    That means blockchain basically will never benefit individuals, it can't. Sure, you could have multiple compatible uis shared around, but that's no different security-wise to multiple central banks with an interoperable transfer system.

    The only place blockchain has real benefits is when multiple large corporations/governments are interacting and don't trust eachother/anyone.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    See the link in my other replies for some examples of internal uses that still benefit from immutable, distributed ledgers.

    Large organizations still have loss and risk from individual bad actors. Operating a central authority that validates every single transaction in a ledger, and validates ledger history and consistency, can be prohibitively complicated. A well designed blockchain implementation can resolve most of these issues.

    A great example is a pharma/healthcare company that wants to manage medicine batch and expiration tracking, as well as distribution/patient assignment. With a traditional infrastructure every participant needs to phone home to a central authority. In a blockchain setup, peers can report ledger events one hop up and propagate it through the chain.

    That's a very simple example but I hope it gets my point across

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    People bring up crypto because it is the only use of blockchain that isn't worse than already established methods. And crypto is only "better" because it's unregulated and allowed a bunch of scams to be pulled.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago*

    Cryptocurrency development makes a whole bunch of arbitrary value-guided decisions during creation, all of these decisions have tradeoffs such that nobody has figured out a way to feature them all at the same time, or would they want to.

    For example, bitcoin is fully auditable. Anyone with a copy of the bitcoin blockchain can review every single transaction in bitcoin's history, and trace the flow of every last satoshi from it's mining to today. This is because the developers of bitcoin place a high value on verifiable auditability and security. Conversely monero was developed for the purpose of being a completely untraceable, unauditable currency that still has a knowable supply. And ethereum was created in a manner that intentionally supported scripting, so that it could be used as a platform for novel applications and contracts. None of these primary features could be ported to either of the other two without breaking them completely, because of the deep programmatic implications of the requirements.

    It's not really a question of better or worse, but of use case. The fact of the matter is that the reason these three examples are the leading currencies for their use case is literally because nobody has yet been able to do a better job. And for bitcoin at least, at this point it's security rests just as much in it's wide adoption and interest as it's design intent, so it's unlikely that anyone ever will.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Two points:

    Then why hasn’t a better blockchain based currency gained any popularity?

    https://www.forbes.com/digital-assets/categories/proof-of-stake-pos/

    Etherium and virtually the whole rest of the crypto scene that is "not bitcoin" has pretty soundly rejected the wasteful Bitcoin design. There was even a fork of Bitcoin that would have used the much more efficient proof-of-stake, but since that would be bad for everyone with a proof-of-work "mining" rig it didn't take over.

    It turns out there is just zero real world need for an untrusted distributed ledger

    https://git-scm.com/

    An "untrusted distributed ledger" is literally the backbone of modern software development. While you could plausibly split hairs and assert that git requires "trust", I don't think you'd wind up in a spot that both supports your assertion and a cognizable difference for anyone but mathematicians and security nerds. (And even if you did, the exact same sort of non-scam usages of blockchains are ones that operate like git, with the ledger used for something else.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    would you recommend any crypto in particular?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)

    thanks! looking into it and syncing up. care to share why you're positive about it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    The most distinguishing feature is that it's private by default, the sender, receiver and the amounts are cryptographically hidden from uninvolved parties. Other than that

    • Tiny fees - fees are only used to prevent spam, not to replace block rewards.
    • Tail emissions - every block rewards the miner with 0.6 XMR ensuring chain security, keeping the fees low and the inflation predictable and small - forever approaching 0 but never reaching it.
    • Variable block sizes - the block size grows and shrinks with the demand, allowing for more transactions when demand is high but still limiting spam.
    • RandomX mining algorithm - ASIC resistant mining algorithm best mined with the CPU ensures fair access to mining and prevents big minig firms from taking over the mining process.
    • Community and culture - the focus of most other cryptos is investing and speculation while monero's focus is on being the best private, uncensored, p2p money. Because of this while other cryptos encourage their users to HODL their coins, monero users are encouraged to save and also spend their coins, treat them like digital cash rather than something who's only purpose is to go up in price. In my opinion this culture leads to several things:
    1. Business acceptance - many privacy centric services like VPN, VPS, e-sim, phone top up, gift card providers etc. accept monero. Usually any service that does, sees it at the top of the chart as the most used crypto, often more than all the other coins combined. Many open source projects accept it for donations as well, with similar findings.

    2. Community built infrastructure - the monero community focuses on building the infrastructure around the idea of monero being digital cash. Things like xmrbazaar.com, a monero based e-bay/craigslist like market where you can buy/sell things for monero, kuno a monero based gofundme alternative for fundraisers, retoswap.com an instance of haveno, a decentralized, p2p monero exchange, monerica.com a repository of monero accepting business and other monero related things are designed with the idea of treating monero as money.

    3. Price stability - because of the fact that monero is actually used for payments it's price is established through adoption rather than speculation which makes it fairly stable in comparison to the rest of the crypto market, thanks to this you can safely spend and receive monero without worrying that a month from now it will loose 50% of it's value. Of course, there are peaks and valleys often caused by the macro market movements like the recent few day pump to $800 and crash back to $400 but that's an exception rather than the rule, for the most part (excluding stable coins) it's one of the most stable cryptos out there with a slight long-term uptrend.

    5 Years

    All time

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 9 months ago (15 children)

    Immutable so long as no one party or group owns more than half of the coins on a given blockchain... then the ledger is whatever they say it is and it propagates down because they can manufacture their own "consensus".

    https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

    and most use cases around things like "smart contracts" end up still requiring a trusted third party at some point

    https://pluralistic.net/2022/01/30/the-inevitability-of-trusted-third-parties/

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    It's not 51% of the coins, it's 51% of the computing power on the network. Both of which are virtually impossible in the case of Bitcoin, though not entirely impossible. I just wouldn't consider a 51% attack even remotely a threat to the network compared to something like government crackdown

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    That's PoW. With PoS, it is coin ownership.

    Which is much more distributed than computing power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago

    Not anymore than PoW, which requires specialized hardware that can't be repurposed for other uses (and thus requires money to enter). I'm not sure if is still true, but I believe at one point less than 10 companies had over 51% of the BTC network.

    Because ownership tends to be much more evenly distributed than ACIS ownership, it makes it harder to collude - you have to have 51% of all coins that are staked (and smaller owners generally pool to stake as well). In addition, a move to collude would almost instantly destroy the value of the staked coin (though maybe not assets tokenized on it), providing another incentive against it.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Immutable so long as no one party or group owns more than half of the coins on a given blockchain... then the ledger is whatever they say it is and it propagates down because they can manufacture their own "consensus".

    No, the community controls the consensus through their nodes. A 51% attack only allows the attacker to perform:

    1. A double spend attack - sending a transaction, receiving the goods and then reorganizing the chain to undo the transaction.
    2. Censoring transactions.

    In the event of a 51% attack the community can fork the chain - change the consensus and implement preventive measures like changing the mining algorithm, changing to PoW/PoS, banning all of the attackers coins, implementing a finality layer or a checkpoiting system etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago* (6 children)

    If you have trust, why do you need a blockchain?

    Distributed / immutable databases are not solely a feature of blockchain either.

    It's a very interesting thing in a vacuum. Basically any application of it so far (with the possible exception of the original one, if it weren't just a speculation investment machine at the moment) runs into the problem where it has to interact with reality at some point. And most of the problems Blockchains solve are already solved by a variety of other systems, for less time/currency/hardware investment.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Because it's an immutable ledger, not just a database. It maintains a history of every previous transaction/entry. Blockchains are used by banks and in the supply chain because it makes backtracing and identifying discrepancies trivial. For things like cryptocurrency, blockchains allow "don't trust, verify" but for something where you already have trust, they allow "trust but verify"

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Cryptographically immutable append only ledgers (aka merkel trees) have existed since at least 1979. A blockchain is different because it has distributed consensus. If your consensus algorithm is trust, then it's not a fucking blockchain.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (20 children)

    The only alternative to proof of work is proof of stake. And if the world ever ran on proof of stake crypto, it would make today’s wealth inequality look like a Marxist paradise.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    There's other alternatives. But PoS does not reward just by ownership either.

    Check out Gnosis, especially Circles, which is creating a UBI type thing.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 10 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    “Internal use only” blockchain is an oxymoron. If all contributors are trusted entities, then what does it matter if the data is stored in a blockchain vs any other data structure? If anything the amount of extra work to maintain and modify the blockchain in the case of errors just makes it unnecessary.

    If that’s the best example of its many “valid, valuable use cases”, then it’s still a pass from me, dawg.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] a comment that isn't shown here: deleted, from someone you've blocked, or on another page. view the thread from it
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    Literally the first example you gave was shut down a year later: https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoReality/comments/1mpeh9z/when_crypto_bros_are_asked_for_a_blockchain_use/

    Pretty obvious that its use in the first place was some FOMO executives trying to get in on “blockchain” technology, just like they’re doing with AI and LLMs now. Funny how BTC and ETH both plateaued a year ago, right around the time AI became the new thing.

    I’m not going to bother reading the rest, I already wasted too much time arguing with a true believer. GL with the crypto that you say you don’t have.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    If all contributors are trusted entities,

    This is not true, even inside a bank. Employees commit fraud. Branches don't trust each other.

    the amount of extra work to maintain

    Once built, maintaining is easy.

    and modify the blockchain

    Er. The whole point is that blockchains are immutable.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago* (1 child)

    But as long as you can have a trusted central authority, you don't need blockchain without needing to trust all the clients. The central authority can enforce authentication and authorization for what each client can do, combine with proper logging it is already sufficient. Blockchain is only needed if there's absolutely no central authority (which is not the case for any traditional business as by nature they already have a hierarchy where the top would act as the central authority, therefore any business that implements blockchain internally is just BS-ing).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    Why? If the rewards are fixed and independent of the amount staked then there is no issue.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    What matters is whether or not there's any significant profit - the reward being bigger than the cost. PoW minimizes this with difficulty adjustment flushing most profits down the toilet. PoS must always have a return competitive with other investments.

    Profits should be low, or else it promotes inequality.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Shut up shut up shut up shut up shut up

    Don't ruin a good thing we've got going on here

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (1 reply)