this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
970 points (98.1% liked)

People Twitter

5390 readers
1665 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.
  6. Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 163 points 1 month ago (8 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 151 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (27 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 29 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Today's inequality was created by the Cantillon effect.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 23 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 1 month ago (14 children)

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.

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Cethin 20 points 1 month ago (6 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 1 month ago

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.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (24 replies)
[–] [email protected] 52 points 1 month ago (21 children)

What problem does blockchain solve?

[–] [email protected] 112 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

Having too much electricity and not enough CO2.

[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago

We recently developed AI for that purpose though which does the same thing but is useless in occasionally funny ways.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 22 points 1 month ago (10 children)

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?

[–] [email protected] 38 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 month ago

Are you saying that they “solve” that by never giving up more than 49% stake?

That… seems like a bad solution

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

Those things sound possible, but I’m not knowledgeable enough to speculate. Sorry.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 21 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 month ago (9 children)

Intermediary free monetary transfer, lack of trust, transparency

[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 month ago

It does only the last one and only partially.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 month ago (2 children)

I've heard of using them as parts of like contracts?

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 month ago (7 children)

What does blockchain solve that existing contracts don’t do? Blockchain has takeover possibility

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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...

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)