You're viewing a single thread.
I’ve read that blockchain itself is a good technology. NFTs are a laughably absurd attempt to exploit that technology for profit.
Xitter op needs to shut up.
It's one of those things where scientists discovered something interesting and novel, and then a bunch of dumb grifters came in to try and make it their new snake oil.
A very, very long time ago, back when Bitcoin was viewed as a currency instead of an "investment" platform, Bitcoin kinda fulfilled the ideal use case for the blockchain. I think now the general public is just too soured on them for that to ever be the case, unless Elon makes Bitcoin the new currency of the U.S...
I seriously think his plan is fuck up the US economy so bad that the dollar hyperinflates.
Don't worry, other countries won't let it happen because their economies are held hostage by US.
Blockchain is a solution in search of a problem. A way to establish trust while not trusting any party is a cool concept, but in the real world it's far easier to establish a source of trust.
It is a bad solution though, because it revolves around wasting tons of energy in solving made up problems no one actually needs the solution to. I know there's alternative cryptocurrency that use better methods or solve actual problems but 90% of it is bitcoin.
Congratulations, now your trust relies on your subject never becoming important enough that someone bothers to run 50%+1 of the nodes in your network which means only very, very large subjects (or ones where trust wasn't very important in the first place) ever even have a chance of that not happening. What do you say? Your technology doesn't scale to very, very large subjects because of abysmal transaction rates?
now your trust relies on your subject never becoming important enough that someone bothers to run 50%+1 of the nodes in your network
Yup. Very well said. People don't realize the extent of wealth inequality (and how ridiculously resource intensive blockchain tech is). If anything important were to be decide by a blockchain, the top 1% would control the network.
More on wealth inequality here.
Today's inequality was created by the Cantillon effect.
What happened in 1972?
Soviet Union launched Venus-8
I have a friend who works at a major bank and they use Blockchain technology to keep track of something or other internally, though I don't remember exactly what. In this case at keast we can bet that it has found a problem wirth using it to sokve. Banks are nothing if not efficient.
I find it funny that it was touted as an alternative to the current banking system and ended up being absorved into it though
I envy your trust in the efficiency of banks
Banks are nothing if not efficient.
Banks are businesses made up of people. If a manager thought he could get a promotion by supporting a blockchain project at the height of blockchain mania, that's what he would do. Whether if fails or not is of no consequence, the manager is already on another project.
My experience working in banking is that they're extremely conservative. They don't take big risks on new technologies or processes and don't modernize their technology too quickly to be certain that everything works as expected and doesn't surprise anyone
If it's used internally, then I question whether it made sense to use blockchain. At the end of the day, it's probably the trust in the bank that matters and not blockchain.
solution in search of a problem
Idk I think centralised trust is a problem in and of itself but you can just look to history and world events that created bank runs and financial crashes like y'know - 2008, a year later the bitcoin ledger began.
it's far easier to establish a source of trust.
Yes but it also comes with problems as mentioned above. Blockchain tech being used for scams if anything is evidence of it being a mature and functional technology for finance because under capitalism it's all inherently a scam of some sort.
That said we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, I'm glad the technology exists even if I don't think it achieved what it set out to do quite as well as one would've hoped, if for no other reason than the fact we can all just buy any drugs online now with one day delivery instead of being stabbed on the street after calling some number like barbarians in the olden days.
Blockchain wouldn't have mattered for 2008, at least not the crash parts. Blockchain would help with who owned which loans which was also an issue. It wouldn't do anything for the crash parts as that was bad lending fundamentals of no verified income or unrealistic appraisal.
Blockchain scams are evidence of it's unreadiness and naivety. Crypto has speed ran the last 200-300 years of financial fraud. Pump and dumps, ponzi schemes, front running, market manipulation, rug pulls, and more.the fact the only viable use case is crime is also pretty telling, anyone that can safely involve a government entity would rather do that.
No it would not prevent the 2008 crash however if you had some money in a cryptocurrency you would be cushioned from some effects of the fallout. Not a replacement, just an addition. Having an alternative is the draw.
Blockchain scams are evidence of it's unreadiness and naivety.
Hard disagree, it's evidence of its effectiveness and maturity. No primitive financial system would be capable of being used for:
Pump and dumps, ponzi schemes, front running, market manipulation, rug pulls, and more
Financial systems are primarily tools for fraud and zero-sum transactions, there's a line there for what is and isn't legal which is decided by the government, but it's ultimately all just taking money from one place to another and someone loses.
I had my money - which at the time include the proceedings of working a few years in Finance - spread over 3 bank accounts in 3 countries back then and came through it all with no loss whatsoever.
Further, crypto is so stupidly volatile that even stocks are better at protecting your wealth because you're actually less likely to see half its value gone in a week with stocks (incredibly unlikely, even, if you get a tracker fund on a major index).
And don't get me started on the ultimate most conservative (literally capable of surviving the collapse of modern civilization) wealth protection thing around - gold.
The point being that unless you expect the collapse of modern civilization (in which case you might try gold or, even better, tradeable essential needs like the kind of food that doesn't spoil easily such as dried pulses), the best way to safekeep your wealth is as usual Diversification, with a focus on things with a stable value, which crypto is definitely not.
This volatility isn't something inherent to all cryptocurrency - bitcoin and eth and pump and dump cryptos are just especially hot speculative assets for people who enjoy holding bags and pump and dump YouTube grifters.
Tradeable essential goods aren't a good basis for currency, they would be your best bet without the internet, but with the internet in such a collapse cryptocurrency could actually work.
Diversification is not a concept in opposition to cryptocurrency, the former is a viable financial principle for savings and investments, the latter is one type of asset (a currency) that someone can hold if they choose to if they believe that centralisation of financial institutions and growing connections between corporations and governments is a risk - for instance I would not expect S&P500 to survive a major climate or landemic catastrophy/incident, world war, especially with protectionism, and maybe I'm an alarmist prepper but while remote, these things are growing increasingly likely or if the oversight of the powers that be is undesired e.g. such as with buying drugs on the internet.
Ultimately it all comes down to that.
Cryptos are inherently volatile because they're natural Ponzi-schemes with no oversight hence no crack-downs by the Law, and have low liquidity - they pull ill all manner of greedy types, suckers and swindlers and naturally end up with boom/hope-bust/fear cycles which have large movements due to the low liquidity of them as an asset. They're also far easier to manipulate with very little investment, especially the smaller ones (exactly the ones that you claim aren't as volatile).
The Tech per se doesn't make so, it's what it allows crossed with human nature that makes it so.
Tradeable essential goods are not supposed to be currency, they're supposed to be for consumption and bartering if shit really hits the fan. I was responding to your point on using cryptos for wealth protection and now you've moved the goalposts to "currency". Yeah. barteable goods aren't good currencies, which is why we have currencies for trading rather than bartering as was was done before currencies were created.
As for the S&P 500 dying, how do you expect crypto would survive a scenario that causes that outcome, considering that the companies that hold and maintain the Internet infrastructure, from consumer ISPs all the way up to LVL1 providers are almost all publicly traded companies? If the S&P 500 dies that means companies are going bust left and right and in that kind of situation the networks needed for crypto would simply stop working (plus a lot of other infrastructure too, but the most complex and interconnected stuff would go first) and people would be down to hard cash and bartering.
The Internet might have originally been designed as ARPANET, a network supposed to survive nuclear war, but the modern Internet is a completely different beast and even ARPANET wasn't capable of maintaining connectivity to consumer homes in the event of a catastrophe, it was only supposed to keep an small number of nodes connected.
Crypto is massively dependent on modern high-tech infrastructure and would collapse well before any currency that still has notes and coins.
As for the not quite so bad stuff, the worst crash of the S&P 500 ever had less price movement from top to bottom (which might take months or even years to fully play) than any normal month for Bitcoin.
Finally, indeed Diversification can include crypto, my point was that for wealth protection purposes you can simply diversify with traditional assets to create a robust wealth protection mechanism - just as I protected myself from the 2008 crash by merely spreading my assets across different banks in different countries - (unless, that is, you're trying to protect yourself from something so bad the S&P 500 dies, in which case as I explained above and in my previous post, it's down to stuff like hard cash, gold and bartering) and crypto won't actually add any security to a diversified wealth protection portfolio, quite the contrary since it's too infrastructure dependent to work in the worst situations and too volatile to maintain a steady value in normal times and mild to bad situations.
Compared to "traditional" Finance assets, crypto's wealth protection ability is somewhere between Stocks and Derivatives and the latter are generally not sold to customers who aren't considered sophisticated exactly because Derivatives can be very very risky (worse than Crypto, even, if we're talking about stuff like Futures).
There is absolutely nothing "natural Ponzi-scheme" about cryptos inherently. They're obviously used as pump and dumps all the time but this is not inherent to the technology.
Yeah. barteable goods aren't good currencies, which is why we have currencies for trading rather than bartering as was was done before currencies were created.
Glad you're somewhat familiar with the history of trade.
Hence if currencies die again, cryptocurrency is a viable alternative as a currency, which barter goods are not an adequate replacement for.
considering that the companies that hold and maintain the Internet infrastructure,
Idk, satellites don't really require daily maintenance in a best case scenario, nor do undersea cables, I fully expect the internet to outlive humanity altogether.
unless, that is, you're trying to protect yourself from something so bad the S&P 500 dies, in which case as I explained above and in my previous post, it's down to stuff like hard cash, gold and bartering) and crypto won't actually add any security to a diversified wealth protection portfolio, quite the contrary since it's too infrastructure dependent to work in the worst situations and too volatile
I simply don't agree with any of this whatsoever. Again, gold and bartering won't make good currency, currency is currency - like cryptocurrency or fiat currency - diversifying so not all your currency is directly dependant on the government is pretty sound financial principle. You can invest into gold but in catastrophies your attempt to barter or otherwise liquidate these assets will be troublesome. It just makes sense to me, but I'm not econ or finance, I'm a compsci.
Nevertheless I appreciate your perspective, you've definitely given me some food for thought for hedging my bets in the future.
There's scams with fiat currency, but you don't show that as evidence that dollars aren't ready for mainstream. When people get scammed out of their crypto it's not blockhain's naivety, it's the victim.
Edit: you all are comparing money, banking, AND government regulation to crypto. They are not comparable and that's not a fair comparison. Crypto is a ledger, like QuickBooks or bank accounts. I'm not even arguing that it should have a great value, but technically it does have value and it serves its purpose. Crypto is only like 15 years old.
When people get scammed in traditional currency, you can revert the transaction. You cannot revert anything with blockchain, and that's a feature, which means if you get scammed out of your bitcoin, there's nothing you can do. That money is lost, and the scammer keeps it.
And if you get scammed out of cash by another person how will the government step in to revert it? Theft happens every day. You are talking about banking, you are not talking about money. They are not the same thing.
Also, when I try to scam someone using my bankaccount, my bank goes "Uhhh, please show us that this isn't a scam". My bitcoin wallet doesn't care.
What schemes exactly? I know there are schemes using fiat currency, but that’s quite different from the currency itself being a scam.
Blockchain isn't inherently a scam, Bitcoin, Litecoin, etherium, monero and others are valid ledgers. They serve their intended purpose technically. You are specifically pointing out that there are investment scans in new shitcoins that are pumped up and dumped, or that never even really exist. You are correct that this doesn't exactly happen with fiat currencies but there are still nearly identical scams, like pyramid scams where people "invest" and they see their account value go up in USD or other fiat, and every month their account balance is inflated. Some people may be able to withdraw their money at first, or maybe nobody can ever withdraw anything.
Blockchain isn't inherently a scam, pretending to launch a coin or launching a coin and abandoning it is hardly different from existing scams that are settled in USD that sell land that doesn't exist or scammers that try to get you to invest in their business and then disappear with your money. You're characterizing all Blockchain currencies as scams, it's just not true. I spent my career working in IT, I look at Blockchain as a technical invention. There are ways to transact securely on Blockchain.
The difference is the government exists to step in and punish scammers, and regulates markets to prevent many scams for being possible.
one of many benifits of the blockchain is that there are ways of using it without directly giving up your name or government ID. A minor side effect is that scams will exist using it.
That is also possible with blockchain, its partly enforced with KYC (know your customer) laws. Granted there isn't currently a great example that I know of where auditing and reversal is possible but that doesn't mean it's not technically possible.
The blockchain doesn't prevent a run on the "banks." If everyone decides to cash out at the same time out of fear of a crash then the currency crashes and there isn't enough money to liquidate everything (until it has no value). It isn't an improvement for that. If anything, it's a negative. Banks can implement policies to prevent it, but you can't really do so with crypto.
It would be useful for things like deeds and contracts. Instead of having a bank hold it and provide proof you could store it on the blockchain. There are a handful of good uses for it, but it's generally not useful for the stuff most people think it would be.
Well, you can't do fractional-reserve banking with bitcoin (or any other coin I know of), so in that way, a "run" on a bitcoin can only ever exhaust the supply. lending out more than you have requires trust, and that's not available in a blockchain structure.
On the other hand, fractional reserve banking is the foundation of all modern financial systems, so it's not really a thing we're going to scrap.
It would be useful for things like deeds and contracts. Instead of having a bank hold it and provide proof you could store it on the blockchain. There are a handful of good uses for it, but it’s generally not useful for the stuff most people think it would be.
Well, yes but no.
There's a lot of problems with blockchain deeds, and one of the big ones is confirming the first owner. What's to prevent me from minting a smart-contract that says I own your house? Or that I own a house that doesn't even exist? In the real world, we've solved those problems (and MANY more) with notaries and central registration systems. At the interchange of digital-ownership and real-world, physical assets, you're always going to need a trusted party to verify that the two match. And at that point, you don't need the blockchain at all.
Sure the currency itself isn't resistant to a run on itself but having some wealth in the currency will cushion a run on the real IRL banks for fiat currency.
Except that it's so incredibly volatile that from one months to the next you literally don't know if your crypto wealth will be worth twice as much or half as much.
If what you're trying to protect yourself from is runs on banks, you'de be better of with gold, works of art, even stocks (which are less volatile than crypto) or, even simpler, spread your money over several banks, ideally in more than one country.
Sure. Diversifying is good. There's no need for crypto for that. Gold or other assets would protect you equally as well.
If the advantage of crypto is something provided by many other things, without the disadvantages of crypto, then crypto shouldn't be desired.
Gold or other assets don't necessarily protect you when you own them through government and more broadly not-wholly-independent-from the-government-financial-institutions, unless you have gold bars at your house, and even then, it's not something you can transfer for payments easily.
On the other hand cryptocurrencies are wholly independent from any institution whatsoever - truly for people by the people - and ones like XMR are actively resistant to them altogether. I don't think Trump is going to be like Hitler, but if he were, I'd bet on something the government can't really easily seize like a distributed decentralised ledger rather than a house or gold that can't be liquidated quickly or transferred for another currency if I was e.g. a targeted minority.
Yeah, that's obviously what I meant; having them in your possession. Yeah, crypto has the advantage of being easy to transfer. That's the one advantage, with a ton of negatives.
I don't know if I'd say they're independent from other institutions. Sure, they technically aren't required, but the way they're liquidated is largely through a small handful of institutions, which is essentially the same as a bank. If those run out of money then you're largely fucked, just as with a fiat currency. There's also the issue these are for-profit companies with no regulations requiring them to pay you if you want to cash out. If they see the price crashing, they're just going to close their doors and keep their money.
Interesting. Good to know. Thanks!
Blockchain is effectively a distributed database. Almost always a good centralized database functions better.
Nah. the commenter above is just wrong. It's just that anyone who isn't selling bullshit uses their real name- Merkel trees - which are fundamental to modern software development (git, zfs, nix, nosql).
That's a similar but different concept. Blockchain adds a way to determine consensus of the correct tree. While git is distributed, it's generally not trustless, there's generally a trusted version of the repository.
what? Git is very much distributed and while you can have a main branch, you can set as many up streams as you want and merge things sideways.
It's trust less in the sense that commits can't be easily forged and are signed with cryptographic keys and identities-- as in, I don't have to trust that the source code is genuine since I can verify the commit history myself.
Consensus is just a pull request.
That wiki article literally lists Bitcoin and Ethereum as implementations of Merkel trees.
It’s trust less in the sense that commits can’t be easily forged and are signed with cryptographic keys and identities.
I'm pretty sure being able to verify that the person responsible for a push is an actual maintainer is the opposite of trustless.
How is it any different than verifying that a transaction occurred?
How is a trusted repository different from a hard fork?
Isn't "proving someone is a maintainer" just an IRL proof of stake?
How is it any different than verifying that a transaction occurred?
With a centralized trust source (bank), you ask for the records.
How is a trusted repository different from a hard fork?
Because you check who owns and maintains it. A notable example was with Simple Apps for Android, earlier this year the main repo was sold to a company. Trust was lost, thus a fork was created to keep the original stuff.
Right, but isn't the "main chain" of Ethereum based on a similar principle wherein it's the main chain because it's the one the devs use?
What about BTC vs BTC lightning.
I'm genuinely failing to see a distinction here, and, again, the wiki article says that blockchains are special cases of Merkle trees.
Right, but isn’t the “main chain” of Ethereum based on a similar principle wherein it’s the main chain because it’s the one the devs use?
No clue, I don't keep an eye on that, I'm partially aware that there are several similar forks (and eth classic was a result of scammy shenanigans) but, afaict, none try to pretend they're the "real" ethereum.
I’m genuinely failing to see a distinction here
A distinction between trust and trustless? Because my initial point was that git isn't trustless, because it works just like any other online system that requires a login, where a central server/database checks if the user sending inputs was properly identified by some mean (password, cryptographic key, something else). Implementing a Merkle or any other hash tree doesn't make something trustless
We define "blockchain" and "blockchain network", and then discuss two very different, well known classes of blockchain networks: cryptocurrencies and Git repositories.
Is it easier to establish a source of trust? With blockchain trust lies in the protocol and in the node operators who make decisions about how to operate their nodes. Running a node isn't extremely difficult. Running a financial institution is difficult.
Well, sure, now you have a currency that doesn't rely on trust
...now what? How are you going to spend that currency if you don't trust anyone? How will you ensure you get what you bought? How will your property get protected? Hell, how do you get others to agree that your crypto is the one they should use?
It's trust all the way down. Removing it from one small part of the chain isn't going to fundamentally change things
What problem does blockchain solve?
Having too much electricity and not enough CO2.
We recently developed AI for that purpose though which does the same thing but is useless in occasionally funny ways.
Apparently, it can be very secure. If “pieces” of a secure key are stored in multiple places, for example, only changing one link in the “chain” means it won’t match with the others. They ALL have to be changed at the same time, which is virtually impossible to do in secret.
Please note that I am far from an expert on the subject. I’m paraphrasing an article I read months ago.
Can’t you takeover a blockchain by owning the majority of a block chain, or by having a majority of the processing power to compute hashes?
Yes which is part of why the major chains are owned and controlled by companies, but then that makes the whole thing pointless. IMO, a company controlled blockchain may as well just be a DB cluster, it would be faster and more efficient.
Are you saying that they “solve” that by never giving up more than 49% stake?
That… seems like a bad solution
Those things sound possible, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to speculate. Sorry.
If you had 51% of the world's computing power (to blockchains using proof of work) yes you could forge records, from what I could wrap my head around about blockchains.
You don't need 51% of the world's power though, just 51% of the power of people who care about how the system works. Most people using block chain cryptos don't care at all, so the threshold is a tiny percentage of the user base.
Yeah you're right. I was thinking specifically Bitcoin and the astronomical amount of compute power that's behind it.
That’s proof of work. Proof of stake is you just need more than everyone else, right?
It works more like loaning money and then receiving interest, except you are loaning crypto to the network and then you get it back, plus some, after a certain period of time
Is the network not considered a third party
This would just create a fork in the blockchain where 51% of the network doesn't match the correct state of the blockchain that the 49% have. The 49% would effectively stop working because they could never validate the transactions that the 51% takeover has falsely created. The node operators of the 49% of the network would need to reach consensus for how to deal with the problem, but essentially they would just adopt code that ignores the 51% data, so they could continue to process blocks of transactions. Without manual intervention the 49% would be frozen. The 51% is just fake, they haven't really changed anything because every real node operator would know it's false data.
What if the 51% have already completed the consensus process?
Essentially, verifiability (the token exists on the blockchain), de-duplication (each token can only exist once on the blockchain), and proof of ownership (only one account number can be associated with each token on the blockchain). There's nothing wrong with this idea in a technical sense and it could be useful for some things.
But... the transaction process is computationally expensive. For the transaction to be trustworthy, many nodes on the blockchain network must process the same transaction, which creates a whole bunch of issues around network scaling and majority control and real-world resource usage (electricity, computer hardware, network infrastructure, cooling, etc).
And beyond that, the nature of society and economics created a community around this unregulated financial market that was filled with... well, exactly the kind of people you'd expect would be most interested in an unregulated financial market - scammers, speculative investors, thieves, illegal bankers, exploitatitive gambling operators, money launderers, and criminals looking to get paid without the government noticing.
The technology can solve some interesting problems around verifying that a particular digital file is unique/original (which can be useful, because it's extremely easy to make copies of digital information) but it creates a long list of other problems as a side effect.
Almost every single non-theoretical problem that blockchains solve is something we've already solved. And most of the problems you could solve with a blockchains are severely limited by data-size limitations.
It would be amazing if I could decentrally store, say, a movie or videogame on a blockchain. Then, I could sell access tokens, would the owners could resell as they wanted. That's a GREAT way to use blockchain tech, because people would always have access, and they could use or sell the keys as they wanted. It doens't work though, because in the real world, that movie doesn't fit on the blockchain, it'll just be a link the a secondary source, and the whole thing falls apart.
And that's really the problem. Blockchains have a lot of nifty uses, but it almost always immediately falls apart around the edges, where it touches on non-blockchain tech, or, even worse, physical objects.
Intermediary free monetary transfer, lack of trust, transparency
It does only the last one and only partially.
How do you transfer money without an intermediary through blockchain?
I am pretty sure you just turn your money over to a scammer who just disappears with it. Since it is stateless and a libertarian dream, nothing can be done. So, congratulations!
You don’t need blockchain for that either. #theranos
By sending it to an address of the recipient's wallet from your wallet? I'm not sure what you're asking. Bitcoing transactions don't involve intermediaries by default unless you're using an exchange of some kind. You can even transfer between cryptocurrencies using atomic swaps.
Granted you'd have to buy crypto for fiat currency to begin with and because of unfortunate regulatotions you have to often go through a KYC process with some banking institution, but that's a fault of glowies getting greedy for data, not the tech.
Is the recipients wallet a web socket somewhere? How does the transaction end up in the actual blockchain such that others can confirm that this transaction was plausible?
So, instead of my bank sending money to your bank, I use my bank to send money to a bitcoin broker, then I send the bitcoin, and then their broker sends money to their bank, adding two more middlemen.
You've got it backwards. Instead of sending bitcoin to an exchange, selling it for dollars, doing a bank transfer, and then the recipient buying bitcoin, you can just send bitcoin from one person to another.
You should read my comment again, that's not what I said.
I said that in order to send money through the blockchain, it takes more middlemen than just sending money via other systems.
I've heard of using them as parts of like contracts?
What does blockchain solve that existing contracts don’t do? Blockchain has takeover possibility
Honestly I don't know. I'm just pointing out the only thing that kind of sort of sounded like a good idea for it I've ever heard. For pictures it's stupid that's for sure
It’s not a picture though. It’s a link to a picture on a server somewhere. If the host goes down, you own nothing.
Isn't it just a small amount of data? If the picture is small enough you could put it directly on the blockchain.
Dunno why you would though. It's very limiting for no particular gain.
But in NFTs the picture is not on the Blockchain. Only a link to the picture is on the Blockchain and the picture itself is still just on the web.
No, they are right. What they are saying is that even though pretty much all NFTs contain a link to a picture on the blockchain, theoretically you could write a really, really small image in the space where you would normally write the URL. From a quick google, that’s 100 bytes. For a black and white image, that’s 100 pixels. For color, that’s around 30 pixels
The technology behind it can be used for things other than pictures. That's kind of the point people are making
Right, and my original question was what does the technology solve? And so far the answer appears to be nothing
Yea the idea there is that with it being decentralized, it has an unedited history. So if each block added to the chain is a new transaction, you can see previous agreements. Being decentralized also means that it's public record and everyone can see the contract/agreement/transaction.
There's a lot of neat stuff that can be done, but as the other guy stated, it's a solution looking for a problem.
Nah. the other commenters are wrong.
They're super useful.
Its just that anyone who isn't selling bullshit uses their real name- Merkel trees - which are fundamental to modern software development (git, zfs, nix, nosql).
Merkel is the previous chancelor of Germany, Merkle is a computer scientist ;)
Hash trees are a part of blockchains, but not the entire thing. This is kinda like saying acupuncture isn't bullshit because needles are useful in real medicine as well.
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/exploring-science-acupuncture
Acupuncture actual does have clinical significant effects though.
I added an arxiv link and a stack overflow link that show that I'm not alone in this assertion of equivalence.
I blame autocorrect for the Merkle typos.
It's a solution that allows two parties, who are so paranoid they don't trust banks, let alone one another, to send funds and maintain a record of transactions with one another.
No, it requires a lot more than two parties, because the resulting “funds” from the transaction still have to be valued by everyone else that provide goods and services. So it becomes a social issue if it is to be a currency, and then you just end up re-discovering all the lessons that lead to how currencies already work.
The valuation of Bitcoin is a completely separate topic than practical use cases of blockchain.
Incorrect. The transaction is not practically useful unless the currency has real value.
Once again, we are talking about blockchain, not Bitcoin
You realize blockchain is used by many large companies for practical purposes, not just by hobbyists swapping magical internet money, right?
Many large retailers (e.g. Walmart) and pharmaceutical companies use managed blockchain solutions (e.g. IBMs supply chain software) to track end to end process flow and see the pedigree of products at their end destination, because it means the end user doesn't need to request unfettered access to 6 different companies ERP systems to know when the hell their purchase order is getting delivered
They really, truly don’t. There are a few “pilot projects” so that the companies can tell investors that they have a “blockchain strategy” but the world runs off of normal databases.
The poster above asked for a use case. I gave one.
Frankly I don't give a shit if the market penetration of said use case doesn't meet whatever arbitrary cutoff you have deemed sufficient for something to "exist" or not - the QR code on the back of every north american bag of Starbucks beans is proof enough. Whether its more or efficient than a traditional RDBMS is irrelevant
the way people use NFTs with art are certainly absurd, but even the core technology of NFTs is actually excellent
We're quite a few years into "the blockchain will revolutionise the world" now and we still don't really have anything but bitcoin and scams
blockchain as a core technology isn’t user-friendly… it should be hidden, and you’ll never know when it’s doing interesting things. it was never going to revolutionise the world, but that doesn’t invalidate its usefulness in niche situations
… it shouldn’t be used for 95% of the garbage people have built with it - and for NFTs that’s more like 99%
I agree completely!
It's a way of guaranteeing behavior when you shouldn't have to trust any individual to review it. It's a great tool for currency, but most people seem to prefer the system where we treat the companies behind the 2008 financial crisis as the trusted party.