
Don't get caught up in blockchain hype - ggm
https://blog.apnic.net/2017/12/14/dont-get-caught-blockchain-hype/
======
lostsock
Here[0] is a great article about what a blockchain is and isn't good for for.
The tldr is that blockchains make tradeoffs that are bad for most things.

 _In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than
their centralized counterparts:_

 _They are slower_

 _They are more expensive_

 _They are less scalable_

 _They have worse user experiences_

 _They have volatile and uncertain governance_

 _And no, this isn’t just because they are new. This won’t fundamentally
change with bigger blocks, lightning networks, sharding, forks, self-amending
ledgers, or any other technical solutions._

 _That’s because there are structural trade-offs that result directly from the
primary design goal of these services, beneath which all other goals must be
subordinated in order for them to be relevant: decentralization._

[0][https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-
de89d417cb80](https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80)

~~~
cloudwalking
They also don't require trusting a single third party processor... which is
sort of the whole point. Blockchains are a tool to solve certain classes of
problems, not every financial problem, or even most financial problems.

~~~
plasma
All of those points are temporary scaling and optimization issues that will be
overcome.

~~~
jmtame
Why is this comment being downvoted? If you disagree, please say why.

~~~
doktrin
I didn't downvote, but it looks like hand wavy bullshit to me. If you're gonna
dismiss fundamental blockchain tradeoffs as being minor temporary obstacles, I
think the onus is on you to back it up - not the other way around.

~~~
jmtame
Ok that seems fair

------
colordrops
From the article, about the supposed expert who is skeptical:

> For all that she has learned, Radia is first to confess that she is by no
> means an expert in the technology — admitting that she cannot distinguish
> exactly what makes something blockchain technology

The article is right about one thing though - a lot of people are talking
blockchains up without having any idea about what they are or how they work.

Conversely, a lot of people, like Radia in the article, are talking
blockchains down, without understanding them.

~~~
cjhopman
People who "understand blockchains" don't agree on what exactly distinguishes
something as blockchain technology, and people (and companies) are claiming
all kinds of things as using "blockchain technology".

~~~
QML
Isn’t blockchain just a type of data structure?

~~~
knocte
Yeah sure but you need to understand asymmetric cryptographic to know how
secure this data structure is, and how it can prevent attacks from private-key
holders and non-private-key holders that claim to be holders.

~~~
garmaine
No, “block chain” itself just refers to the hash-chain ordering of
transactions. Using asymmetric crypto to verify spend conditions is sorta
orthogonal to that.

~~~
knocte
blockchain without cryptography is like writing a data structure without any
motivation for its existence. i.e. why hashtables were created in the first
place? To have indexing (faster access than simple array/lists). What would be
the point of a blockchain without cryptography? You cannot call that
blockchain IMO (otherwise, any chain of blocks would be a blockchain, for
example: a file is a blockchain, right?).

~~~
danieldk
_blockchain without cryptography is like writing a data structure without any
motivation for its existence_

Note that you said _asymmetric_ cryptography and your parent said that
_asymmetric_ cryptography is not the basis of the block chain. And they would
be right, at its core, the blockchain consists of blocks of transactions in a
Merkle tree. The Merkle tree typically uses a cryptographically strong hash,
otherwise it would be possible to modify the Merkle tree without anyone
noticing. But a hash is _not_ asymmetric cryptography.

In many applications of the blockchain, asymmetric cryptography is used to
sign transactions. But that is largely orthogonal to the blockchain as a data
structure. The blockchain as a data structure has useful applications without
transaction signing, etc.

What makes the discussion clouded is that some people define 'block chain' as
transaction blocks in a Merkle tree, while others also consider distributed
consensus, etc. to be part of the block chain.

~~~
garmaine
Also there's no reason _asymmetric_ crypto has to be used. You could use
Lamport signatures, for example.

------
Fezzik
It may be too late for a lot of people. My mom called me today, she's a
retired teacher in her early 70s, and the guy installing her new gutters in
Mount Vernon, WA (USA)* just put a few grand towards Bitcoin and now my mom is
thinking of making a significant financial investment in the same. She has
not-a-single-clue what Bitcoin is, does, or could do. She only knows that it
is all over the news and everyone, including the handyman installing her
gutters, is throwing money at cryptocurrencies (though few call any by that
name). Everyone is hoping to get rich quick.

* Not quite the middle of nowhere, but certainly not a tech hub

~~~
thkim
it's already posing a significant threat in smaller economies like South
Korea. a lot of people (even here on hacker news) don't seem to understand the
consequences of bitcoin & cryptocurrency. i am very concerned.

a lot of bitcoin followers seem to think that decentralization saves us from
arbitrary value adjustments. decentralization completely exposes currency to
volatility and does not self-stabilize nicely regardless how many people use
it, because supply is broken. this false idea that decentralization is good
for currency shows lack of understanding in how currency works. a central
authority is _required_ to protect the value of currency. that is why central
bank prints money and does QE. it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies.
without central authority, it cannot function as currency.

~~~
adammunich
What is the best book on our current central bank currency paradigm you would
recommend?

~~~
thkim
I don't know a book to recommend. basic scheme is explained in any money &
banking textbook. if you know what a bank run is, why it occurs and how it is
being prevented then you will see why bitcoin's decentralization makes no
sense. only part that is probably not on textbook is this blind faith that
volume guarantees stability. it does not.

~~~
UncleEntity
I know what a bank run is, why it occurs and how it is being prevented
(probably better than your average bear) and I see no correlation between that
and bitcoin.

The only problem I see, if you could even call it that, is that bitcoin
"banks" (exchanges?) are restricted to being 100% warehousing operations since
there is nobody to bail them out if (when?) they decide they can make more
profit earning interest by loaning out the funds they are contractually
obligated to hold.

If you want to avoid a run on your bitcoin exchange then simply don't engage
in fractional reserve banking...or, I suppose, don't lose all your holdings to
hackers.

~~~
thkim
i am saying that when bitcoin value takes a hit by some global event, and
people panic to sell, there is nothing that will stop the value from gyrating
to zero. what are you talking about? what does charging interest or reserve
have anything to do with this? you make no sense.

~~~
UncleEntity
You know that's totally, completely different from a bank run, right?

Central banks have very little influence on the value of their currency once
people lose faith in it, people will buy _anything_ instead of holding on to
their (usually rapidly devaluing) currency.

One thing every holder of bitcoin knows is it will never suffer through
hyperinflation, ever.

~~~
thkim
central bank scheme is not perfect. however central bank has proven to be very
effective at providing stability to currency. bitcoin's scheme is vastly
inferior. protection from hyperinflation is not a great benefit compared to
unstable currency value bitcoin is designed to suffer. also hyperinflation
doesn't occur unless the government is essentially defunct. I'm sure people
would just switch to some other reputable currency before it happens.

------
0xWilliam
Here are some points to consider as to whether blockchain is appropriate for
your application:

Data on blockchains is by default, unencrypted, especially data that needs to
be validated by the nodes. Blockchains do not have inherent security against
read access. You can control read access to some degree by encrypting certain
elements on your blockchain but this can be compromised. Not all information
on the blockchain is true; data still needs to be checked and uploaded
correctly and as such is open to human error. No amount of time guarantees
something will stay in the ledger. It is also difficult to remove data if
required by law. It’s not secure because it depends on the assumption that the
blockchain community has more compute than the rest of the world. It’s
absurdly expensive to mine blocks to store data indefinitely. Lack of
government regulations for blockchain could impede growth.

~~~
dorfsmay
"It’s absurdly expensive to mine blocks to store data indefinitely."

Is this true of all block chains or specific to bitcoin?

~~~
TheDong
If you don't have mining, or a similar way to decide between various possible
forks, what you have is a cryptographically secured append-only ledger (such
as what the git data-format resembles).

That's not a blockchain and that idea has existed for decades already.

I think that idea is now being called a "blockchain" since in reality the
trustless/proof-of-work nature of a true blockchain is largely wasted for
specific companies.

~~~
tscs37
It's a blockchain if you have a directed linked list of blocks. Even git is to
some extent blockchain.

~~~
TheDong
That's a redefinition of what a blockchain is IMO.

That's definitely the definition some companies are operating under.. but
really?

WALs and journals have existed for _ages_ and both fit the definition of a
directed list of blocks.

Hell, ext2 and FAT fit that definition (inodes forming a directed list of
block-references).

I guess we all store our data on something that's technically a blockchain by
your definition.

~~~
tscs37
It's not a redefinition, it's a definition that has been around since the
1990's [0], the only requirement for a blockchain is A) directed linked list
(block points to previous block) and B) cryptographic security (use hashes as
block index)

Bitcoin is merely the first application to use Blockchain in a decentralized
proof-of-work manner.

~~~
jacquesm
A git repository is a Merkle tree.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree)

A bitcoin blockchain is _also_ a Merlke tree.

But a git repository is _not_ a blockchain.

~~~
tscs37
It is a blockchain is you don't merge since you have a commit pointing at a
previous commit, (block points to block), merges point to two parents but
Ethereum has that almost with uncle blocks.

The commit log of a repo is almost certainly a blockchain, which is why I
mentioned "to some extend"

~~~
jacquesm
You are simply wrong.

Think of a blockchain as only one strand (say, the leftmost strand, from a
leaf all the way to the root) of a Merkle tree. Think of a git repository as
the whole tree. So no, they are not equivalent.

If they were there would never be a way to have more than one branch depend on
a previous one.

~~~
tscs37
As mentioned, the git commit log, not the entire repo, which is more organized
like a merkel tree, though that is only really the storage.

The commit log is a strict DAG, if you don't have any merges, it is a strict
blockchain, otherwise it gets fuzzy but is close enough.

I never said it's equivalent but that is what a blockchain is; "A blockchain
[...] is a continuously growing list of records [...] which are linked and
secured using cryptography."[0]

This doesn't mention "Can't be a merkle tree" for one, but also doesn't
mention "can't consist of branches which merge again" or "requires proof of
work" or "must use signatures" (cryptography refers to the hashes normally but
can refer to anything else too)

Git also acts like a blockchain, if you change the past (edit a past commit)
you need to update all following commits for the new hash and their children
hashes and anyone who has the repository must do a force pull, similarly to
how Bitcoin rejects fork chains with less proof-of-work.

It might be worth mentioning that Bitcoin also uses MerkleTrees for storage as
they are very good for quickly comparing sets.

A blockchain does not necessarily process financial transactions at all and I
don't see why it must be a requirement.

[0]:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain)

~~~
jacquesm
"if you don't have any merges" -> so, not a blockchain.

What you are saying is that you can use git in such a way that you get
something resembling a blockchain but - again, and it is getting tiresome -
that does no imply equivalence between git and the blockchain.

I really don't understand why you keep arguing.

~~~
tscs37
As I mentioned, even with merges it still has the properties of a blockchain,
just not the ones traditionally used by cryptocurrencies.

You still have blocks (commits) pointing to other blocks (commits). Some
blocks just points to multiple other blocks (think the uncle system in
ethereum, which is just exactly that; temporary forks that are still included
into the chain)

~~~
pests
There is two definitions in play here for the word blockchain.

In the version you mean, how does the blockchain (git, or any other blockchain
by your definition) respond when two valid blocks are canidates to be added to
the end of the chain?

Is only one block the winner? How is this property maintained as the
blockchain grows?

These are the questions and issues the blockchain others in this thread mean
can deal with, while, for example, these questions don't exactly make sense
for, for example, git.

~~~
sirclueless
Yes, only one block is the winner. It is whatever the maintainer of the git
repository chooses as HEAD. This property is maintained by any number of out-
of-band mechanisms such as Github pull requests and company-wide mandates
never to "git push --force".

Seriously though, it just seems like a question of semantics. Is a blockchain
just a specific sort of Merkle tree -- thus making Bitcoin a blockchain plus a
distributed consensus protocol? Or does calling something a blockchain
necessarily imply some consensus protocol already.

~~~
pests
Just semantics.

You can search right now and find programming 'blockchain tutorials',
targeting the cryptocurrency community, that go on to describe only linked
blocks chained together via some embedded hash of a subset of the previous
blocks (meta)data. This is what others in various comments are calling a
cryptograpically secured blockchain.

Other tutorials will set up a mempool (pending transactions) or get peers
communicating. I've never seen peer discovery or any discussion on chain value
(ie height vs accumulated difficulty) for chain selection.

------
drcode
I think there's lots of solid advice in this article, but this last bullet
point is an eye-roller:

> Lack of government regulations for blockchain could impede growth.

i.e. "We're from the government, and we're here to help make your blockchain
more efficient and grow faster!"

~~~
mlamat
Only in your narrow minded libertarian brain does that sound absurd.

Government regulation exists precisly for the purpose of making inter-personal
relations more efficient.

~~~
dang
Personal attacks break the site guidelines. So does using HN for ideological
battle. The combo of the two is particularly ban-worthy. Please read
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)
and please don't post like this again, regardless of which ideology you favor
or how wrong the other one is.

~~~
drcode
Heh, I spend enough time on Reddit that this guy's reply just sounds like a
normal mode of discussion these days...

------
thisisit
In case people want some more insights look at my question I posted earlier:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15915520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15915520)

There is a huge difference between the cryptocurrency blockchain and the
enterprise-y blockchain. They are not the same thing which kinda confuses the
whole message.

~~~
neuralzen
It's worth noting that it is likely many private blockchains will still use
and interact with public blockchains, such as to embed the hashes of private
blockchain blocks, to ensure integrity of a chain with undoubtably fewer, and
therefor more compromisable, nodes.

------
a_d
So, umm, what is blockchain _really_ useful for? The basic thing blockchain
helps with is: it provides a way to verify the order in which entries are made
to a ledger.

Genuine question: What applications/problems it is useful for? Have you seen a
good application yet (other than currencies)?

Would love to learn about the positives, from this community.

~~~
garmaine
What are semaphores useful for? That’s the question you are asking really.
Bitcoin is a global, non-trusted semaphore/mutex lock system.

A “smart contract” is basically an ordinary payment contract where execution
steps are gated by separate semaphore controlled by sunsets of the participant
set.

What can you do with that? It’s hard to answer without being so general as to
be useless, or without getting too specific such that we lose the big picture.

“Block chain” is about replacing courts and arbitration with a computer
network, and replacing contract lawyers with programmers. What makes this
possible is the fair, untrusted, equal access semaphore a bitcoin spend
provides.

~~~
retube
literally every time someone asks this really straightforward question the
answer is vague tech waffle.

seriously, please: tell me one genuine use case for block chains that
conventional database stack can't do?

~~~
sirclueless
They can guarantee that some data that indicates it was recorded yesterday was
in fact recorded yesterday and not changed at any point since yesterday.

There's literally nothing a blockchain can do that a trusted central database
couldn't do. So you only need a blockchain if you can't trust a central
database. As a result, the answer to the question you've posed is always going
to be a political one, not a technical one. ("It lets banks that don't trust
each other keep a shared database of transactions." "It lets citizens who
don't trust their various governments exchange currency." "It lets shipping
companies that don't trust each other digitize their manifests." "It lets
scientists prove their papers were published on a certain date.")

~~~
retube
Cool, yes, one use case: you can stick document hashes in to the block chain
to prove document state at some point in time. This no doubt has legal uses,
and perhaps scientests too although I think less so.

Re your shipping manifest example - can you expand on this - how does this
work?

~~~
sirclueless
Basically, when I load up your ship, I document all the stuff I am loading on
to the ship in a Bill of Lading. You agree that all of that stuff is present
and you're now responsible for it. At the other end of the shipping route you
present the Bill of Lading and show that all the goods are present and intact.

If this document is digital, then I might get screwed if you lose stuff or
stuff gets damaged and you remove it from the Bill of Lading and say you never
saw the goods. Or you might get screwed if I add new stuff to the Bill of
Lading after you load the goods and claim you didn't deliver it. So one way to
solve this is to put the document and both of our signatures in a blockchain,
and now we all agree that this is what we saw on that date.

~~~
retube
cool thanks

------
shrimpx
The core innovation in the original paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is Proof of
Work: A system where people secure the scarcity of a decentralized digital
quantity by spending compute power in order to be rewarded units of the same
digital quantity.

Proof of Work is ultimately a set of well-balanced design decisions employing
well-known technology. Maybe that's why people have a hard time seeing the
novelty in it: they just see a bag of individual technologies and miss the
delicacy of the design.

~~~
roma1n
I may be misinformed, but I see proof of work schemes as something that will
inevitably lead to a tremendous waste of energy -- the last thing we should do
if we still want to inhabit this planet in a few decades. If a centralized
authority is needed to reduce this waste, then so be it.

~~~
shrimpx
It's true. Alternatives like Proof of Stake, Delegated Proof of Stake, Proof
of Importance, etc., try to fix the energy waste problem. They follow similar
reasoning to Proof of Work, using financial incentives to keep miners honest.
They don't require centralized authorities. However it's early days for Proof
of Stake, we'll see how it develops.

------
hasa
I see only the fundamental design flaw in the decentralization. Copying a
infinitely growing dataset to increasing amount of processing nodes is just
worst kind of design error I can imagine in any decentralized system.

~~~
thkim
yes, bitcoin is single linked list that's not even sharded. design is very
flawed. can't believe these bitcoin followers think it's holy grail of
technology. bitcoin can't even handle the current volume well. it requires
massive computing power, bandwith, storage at every node.

~~~
DaiPlusPlus
BTC is designed to evolve. If the problems you’ve described do turn out to be
major issues then node software will be updated to address those concerns.
While difficult, I’ll admit, it is not impossible to add sharding (for
example) to the BTC Core network.

~~~
martyvis
If BTC is truly subject to evolutionary forces, then there is no logical
reason to think it isn't heading down a dead end branch. How can you guarantee
adding to a flawed technology won't see that "value" unravel , especially if
something fundamentally different come along that solves the problem set
without carrying legacy baggage or leaving collateral damage that each "fork"
by definition must incur?

------
kaicianflone
People need to take a crash course into the community before making
accusations like this. Simply looking at the protocols of the largest
blockchain shows that no one wants crazy, overbearing government regulation;
we don't even know who created it. Also, it's very naive when they associate
blockchain with data and monetary values when it could be used to track
anything. If I had an iPad in the bathroom, when I use the toilet I can
validate it by pressing a button and reward myself with a Number 2 Coin. If I
wanted the blockchain to be more secure and trustworthy I could open the
window and text the neighbors so they could validate that I am also in the
bathroom.

~~~
rabidrat
> no one wants crazy, overbearing government regulation; we don't even know
> who created it.

As an aside, I think it is somewhat likely that Satoshi was a state-sponsored
actor or organization.

~~~
UncleEntity
> As an aside, I think it is somewhat likely that Satoshi was a state-
> sponsored actor or organization.

To what end?

States have a habit of going after anything that threatens their monopoly on
the issuance of currency.

------
chrisco255
Skeptic writer from Newsweek in 1995: "Why the Internet Will Fail" :
[https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-b...](https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-
books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/)

~~~
Gargoyle
While I don't think it's completely relevant to this particular topic, here's
a cleaner link to the original:

[http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-
nirva...](http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-
nirvana-185306)

~~~
doctorcroc
This article actually makes a lot of good points about the issues we're seeing
today around "fake news", and the general uncivilized discourse that dominates
the internet. He wasn't entirely wrong, but maybe underestimated how pervasive
the web would get before we took a step back and saw the warts.

------
lordnacho
“Don’t say ‘Can we apply blockchain for this application?’ or ‘We have
blockchain, what sort of things can we use it for’. Instead, start from the
other end with the problem you’re trying to solve and consider the best ways
to solve it,” said Radia.

Sound advice for all problem solving.

~~~
abrookewood
Unless of course the problem you are trying to solve is how to raise money
really quickly by cashing in on the latest fad.

------
cutler
I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up screwed by "investing" in bitcoin or
the like. There will always be a significant percentage of our flawed human
race out to get something for nothing. So long as it's legal there can be no
real progress. Making money out of money - be it bitcoin or any other currency
- without contributing anything of real value is the root of all our economic
problems.

------
sAbakumoff
while bitcoin makes all the news and contributes to the gold rush insanity of
averages Joes, Ethereum is seating quite, but it can make even bigger news,
like the most recent one about a Swiss bank to build the EU regulation
platform based on the Etherium smart contract implementation. I am thinking
about contributing all my crypto money to ETH.

~~~
UncleEntity
You got me curious so I did a little digging.

While most articles infer they are building these things on top of the public
Ethereum blockchain it is more likely they are basing it on top of R3CEV[0].

Either sloppy reporting or part of a grander pump-and-dump scheme, you
decide...

[0][https://www.coindesk.com/r3cev-blockchain-
test-11-banks/](https://www.coindesk.com/r3cev-blockchain-test-11-banks/)

~~~
sAbakumoff
Yeah, recently sloppy reporting contributed to the insane raise of IOTA
cryptocurrency but after the clarification it flew down to earth. It totally
looked like pump-and-dump! But Etherium is another story, I believe in its
future.

~~~
UncleEntity
Meh...

Back when they were still planning things out I dropped some economic theory
on them (over gas pricing IIRC) and they were basically like "nah, that would
hurt our cabal". I wish I had a link because I'm not even exaggerating.
Totally left a bad taste in my mouth.

Then I hear about hard forks and proof of stake and "welcome, my son, welcome
to the machine..."

------
kccqzy
Why is APNIC writing about the blockchain? Isn’t APNIC’s job to regulate IP
addresses in the Asia Pacific region?

~~~
jstewartmobile
Radia Perlman, inventor of STP, "mother of the internet"[0], had something to
say about blockchains, so why not?

[0]
[https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=mother+of+the+i...](https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=mother+of+the+internet)

------
wslh
For a general audience this article is not clarifying enough where the hype is
and where it isn’t.

There is a clear distinction between public/permissionless blockchains (e.g.
Bitcoin) and distributed ledgers (misnamed as private blockchains). The
article is referring mainly to the later.

Bitcoin is a theoretical and practical computer science innovation even if the
Bitcoin price goes down to $ 0. The innovation covers a search for decades for
a secure P2P and [central] bankless protocol solving the multiple spending
problem. This innovation uses game theory and security, and we expect that
there will be new innovations around this concept. Check “Blockchain Research
Resources” [1]

Regarding distributed ledgers the signal to noise ratio is very low (lot of
hype). To clarify this we must understand that distributed ledgers existed
long before the blockchain and are not really connected to Bitcoin and other
public blockchains beyond reusing some part of those implementations but
without the core innovation. These are examples of previous initiatives:

The Bitcoin paper is from 2008 while Nick Szabo’s smart contracts concept is
from 1994 [2]

if we go back in time we can find the AMIX project in 1988 [3]

Another concept used in a distributed ledger is the idea of immutability of
data recorded there. Ideas of log immutability can be traced back to a 1995
Spanish article titled “VCR y PEO, dos protocolos criptográficos simples” [4]
and then reviewed in 1998 in English as “VCR and PEO revised” [5]. Bruce
Schneier also published similar works in 1997 with Automatic Event-Stream
Notorization Using Digital Signatures and in 1998 as “Cryptographic Support
for Secure Logs on Untrusted Machines” [6]. Also look at "Logcrypt: Forward
Security and Public Verification for Secure Audit Logs" [7].

[1]
[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J8hehbnZWzcIUMQcxMiGbjz8...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J8hehbnZWzcIUMQcxMiGbjz86wDu3zDFF7UtkR0XjGE/)

[2]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract#History](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract#History)

[3] [http://erights.org/smart-contracts/index.html](http://erights.org/smart-
contracts/index.html) and [http://erights.org/smart-
contracts/history/index.html](http://erights.org/smart-
contracts/history/index.html)

[4]
[https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/...](https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/05/2Protocolos.pdf)

[5]
[https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/...](https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/05/PEO.pdf)

[6] [https://www.schneier.com/academic/paperfiles/paper-secure-
lo...](https://www.schneier.com/academic/paperfiles/paper-secure-logs.pdf)

[7]
[https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/441c/447bf74b1b9e403d043fbd...](https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/441c/447bf74b1b9e403d043fbda2b54c54081c54.pdf)

------
colorincorrect
Don't get caught up in "catching up" hype

Don't get caught up in hype hype

