
No, you don't need a blockchain - DataPrivacy
https://thomaslarock.com/2018/11/no-you-dont-need-a-blockchain/
======
swift532
From what I see in discussions about blockchain hype, blockchain is conflated
with cryptocurrency by largely ignorant opinions on the Internet.

I concede this: It's true that a blockchain is just an distributed immutable
series of transactions, aka a slower database. I agree that that's overhyped
and people don't need things like IBM Hyperledger, and basically any private
blockchain or one that depends on trusted parties(the great majority of coins
that boast to be faster than Bitcoin).

However, I believe all that misses the actual point and proves the ignorance
of most such articles, because it is also true that cryptocurrencies solve the
previously unsolved double spending problem and provide true, distributed,
open-to-all decision making. Of course, from this I exclude the great majority
of centralized shitcoin cash grabs / delusions.

Yes, there are scaling issues which might never be surmounted (I'd call it
50-50 that things like Lightning Network / Ethereum sharding will succeed One
Day™). However, having an open, open source global
payment/calculation/information network is a thing of great potential.

~~~
drngdds
>cryptocurrencies provide true, distributed, open-to-all decision making

In what way? If they distribute decision-making power by who has the most
currency, then it's not really democratic.

~~~
swift532
In the way that they are forkable and sufficiently large groups of people
(because a very small number has little effect) breaking away, or just having
that ability, can:

\- disincentivize those participating in network decisions from making them in
bad faith

\- ditch the bad/evil network and form their own (and if they wish and can
agree upon it, punish evil participants by not giving them equal money on the
forked network which would theoretically become the main one in time)

~~~
adamrezich
I used to believe in this before the Ethereum DAO thing happened, which made
me realize: cryptocurrencies sell themselves on "decentralization" yet by the
nature of the technology, anyone with access to sufficient resources can gain
control of the system. There's nothing to stop this from happening at any
point in the future of any cryptocurrency... and it's insane to think that any
sort of currency that needs to be forked repeatedly and without warning will
catch on with normal users. I'm no cryptocurrency hater or anything and the
idea appeals to me at a deep level but I have a hard time seeing the tech as
it currently exists working in practice in human society.

~~~
swift532
I think the instability of the past (contentious forks, DAO, anything else)
are growing pains, but with enough time I believe it's possible that we as a
sort of hive mind will settle on something more permanent and stable because,
at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network.

~~~
adamrezich
>because, at one point, it'll be in noone's interest to fragment the network

It will always be in someone's interest to attempt to take control of a
network, thus eventually causing opposition interest to fork the network, thus
continued fragmentation and impenetrability w.r.t. normal users

Basically, how do you solve the "government and/or private individual/group
with enough wealth and/or access to resources can take control of a
cryptocurrency by acquiring majority consensus" problem?

~~~
swift532
In proof of stake, that could be a problem (though there are mechanisms people
claim can handle it). But in a proof of work currency, having majority
consensus would mean they'd have to have the majority of miners - and even
then they have to follow the rules because users' nodes will just reject
invalid blocks. And in the worst of cases, people can fork away, and if they
change the PoW algorithm while doing so - they'll also render the malicious
actor's ASICs useless.

I'm not saying this is fool proof, but the innovation of Bitcoin is precisely
the system which is designed to resist these things (again, it's still very
hard).

------
mrharrison
For those on the "you don't need a blockchain hype train." I suggest your
write a dApp, and see how easy it is to connect to a highly fault tolerant
function as a service that is accessible to the public, with the network
affect of being able to access other contracts deployed by others. There is a
lot more to blockchain than what is discussed in this article.

~~~
mbesto
For those on the "blockchain hype train", I suggest you find a business
solution that requires a dApp.

> that is accessible to the public, with the network affect of being able to
> access other contracts deployed by others.

Outside of crypto (mainly bitcoin), what business problem exists for this
problem today and what blockchain solution has been created to solve it?

I've genuinely waited for people to provide a serious answer to this and I'm
still waiting for an answer.

~~~
kls
The storage of information that no one owns for one. Further on chains like
Ethereum's one can build a contract based on a contract built by another
party. Further using the data in that contract in new and novel ways. So lets
say I build an app lets say for simplicity sake, I build a game and expose all
the mechanics as a contract but I absolutely hate swords. So I will not
implement swords in my contract. You are free to come along and build a
contract that extends my contract and adds swords to it. My contract is still
100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what you want.

From a more practical aspect I see great value in, non-corporate owned data.
For example medical records. If everyone had a contract where they can provide
their key to their medical providers so that they can add diagnostics, x-rays
etc. and then only individuals you grant access to can read said records you
would have a nice solution to open but secure medical records. Without a
central authority or corporation owning and having control of that data. an
open credit report would be another good one. Social networks not owned by
Facebook and where anyone can build apps ontop of said data would be another.

It's not a fix all as companies are pitching it based on the buzz but anywhere
where open data that needs to be secured and would better off if it where not
owned by an organization, block-chain is a great solution. Sure there are
speed issue with it right now. But assuming that, the speed issue is addressed
I see a lot of uses for it.

~~~
icebraining
> My contract is still 100% whole and unmodified but you are able to get what
> you want.

So, a VCS fork? We had that for a while.

> medical records

All you're describing is an online folder with a standard API to which you
upload encrypted files. The point of the blockchain and friends is to achieve
_consensus_. It brings absolutely nothing new to that use case. It's only
worse, since it relies only on encryption to protect extremely sensitive data.
Do you want all your records open in twenty years when someone breaks whatever
algorithm used back then?

~~~
sharemywin
Free speech. Anonymous speech.

Some kind of electronic notary: Some kind of hash that verifies something
hasn't been tampered with which is signed by multiple parties which keeps
adding transaction on top of transaction making it costly and costly to change
the hash.

~~~
icebraining
_Free speech. Anonymous speech._

Doesn't require achieving a global consensus, hence we already have had
Freenet for quite a while.

 _electronic notary_

Still no consensus required. Cheaper version: have all parties digitally sign
a file with that hash, then upload it to IPFS and share the address.

------
azamatms
The hype around "you don't need a blockchain" is reaching a fever pitch as
well. Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable
usecases.

There are a few good points made, many business scenarios would be fine with a
centralized database.

However, the content is highly opinionated and shows a lack of understanding
regarding to crypto transactions and block generation, for example.

> many cryptocurrencies rely on trusted third parties to handle payouts. So,
> they use blockchain to generate coins, but don’t use blockchain to handle
> payouts. Because of the issues involved around trust. Let that sink in for a
> moment.]

~~~
dplavery92
> Those who read HN are likely aware of the differences and viable usecases.

I am unaware of any non-currency use case where blockchain brings any
advantages to bear.

~~~
sharemywin
Anonymous Free speech.

Some kind of electronic notary service. \- version labeling for code

You could tie a website to a bitcoin address by posting a file that had a hash
which was written to the not in bitcoin.

~~~
brokenmachine
How would a blockchain help for an Anonymous Free speech usecase? Serious
question.

------
bespoken
> Blockchain is also the driving force behind cryptocurrencies, allowing
> Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle of
> showing their identity. So, if that sounds like you, then yes, you should
> consider using blockchain.

Oh my, this is soo opinionated and short sighted, it starts with complete
rubbish, pointless read I guess.

~~~
666lumberjack
Do people not use bitcoin to purchase drugs anonymously on the Internet?

~~~
azamatms
Do people not use cash to buy drugs?

~~~
666lumberjack
Not on the internet, as far as I'm aware.

~~~
brokenmachine
Lots of dummies use Facebook to arrange cash drug transactions. Does that
count?

------
dnautics
> Or, if you’re running a large logistics company with one or more supply
> chains made up of many different vendors, and need to identify, track,
> trace, or source the items in the supply chain, then blockchain may be the
> solution for you as well.

Can someone explain to me why. You need a block chain for this? Why not just
an evented database with a signature field and periodic hashes?

~~~
ssalka
How would you prevent a rogue developer from updating/deleting events? Even if
you could tell from the hashes that something changed, you would lose whatever
data the dev changed. Backups can help mitigate this, but not until after the
fact.

~~~
syrgian
Have database replicas that only listen to INSERT statements (easy to
implement in My/Maria SQL with BEFORE triggers), and design the software that
works with the DB as append-only.

~~~
icebraining
Right. Or any other append-only system, really. I mean, one wouldn't ask "how
do you prevent someone from deleting an email they sent you earlier?"

------
jetzzz
Ability to create tokens and make money out of it has created a lot of
unnecessary hype. Blockchain has its use-cases, but not as many as some want
it to have.

------
chaosmail
I think Blockchain technology as distributed immutable ledger is a very nice
data structure for a lot of real world use cases (supply chain, market place,
contracts,..). Sure it's also a huge hype thanks to crypto currencies, icos,
etc. but the technology fulfills a need. However, I see more advantages in
using private quorums leveraging proof of authority instead of public networks
of untrusted nodes. I understand that not everyone might be ok with this
tradeoff.

~~~
icebraining
Distributed immutable logs of data existed long before the Blockchain (as
someone pointed out, Git is a good example - just sign your commits). The
innovation of the Blockchain was specifically the combination of that with the
POW, which enabled coordination between untrusted nodes without falling prey
to Sybil attacks.

A private blockchain is just giving another name to a preexisting model. It's
like saying "I use a pedelec, but I see more advantages in removing the motor
and battery".

------
Nuzzerino
This article is a clever strawman. Their technical definition of blockchain is
accurate, but there is one detail missing which changes everything. Most
"blockchain solutions" use smart contracts, which make heavy use of data
validation.

So I'd review that checklist again, but this time without the need for all
parties to trust each other. Yeah, that's a pretty significant difference.

It's easy to find valid arguments to support the idea that blockchains are
overhyped. But I get the impression that the author's understanding of the
subject is outdated. Did the author even bother to do any research on why
there was a bubble? It would not have taken more than minutes to stumble
across the definition of a smart contract.

As they say in cryptoland, this is just FUD.

------
esotericn
Terminology is such a pain in the arse.

"A blockchain" has been sufficiently generalised by now in common usage that
you may as well state "a thing".

Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing. It depends what sort of
thing you're doing.

~~~
jniedrauer
> Do you need a thing? I mean, you might need a thing.

Why, yes. Yes I do. Thank you for asking.

~~~
esotericn
I've got just the thing for that.

Shameless plug: you may enjoy my consulting company.

We relocate electrons for you, so you don't have to.

[https://electronrelocation.com](https://electronrelocation.com)

------
chaostheory
> Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up, grows
> forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!

Did he get this wrong? Don't blockchain ledgers always get backed up? Isn't
the difference being that instead of just backing up to one place and at one
specific time like most database setups, blockchain data is backed up with
everyone all the time with every transaction? - which is why it can take hours
to just updated one record

~~~
swift532
Yes, you are correct. And also, all of those are useful features (except time
taken to update, which is a side-effect of consensus/propagation costs).

------
spatley
“allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet without the hassle
of showing their identity.” Except for the fact that it is kept in a public
ledger for eternity.

------
kirykl
It’s easier to just nod yes and take money from your management who’s decided
they need a blockchain, than spend time burning bridges in explaining why they
don’t

~~~
mooneater
That is sad, life is too short for this.

------
decentralised
As a professional blockchain developer and someone who believes and works
towards decentralisation and the economic emancipation of the under-
represented, I find this type of article very sad.

The author probably buys his drugs in a store like most people do, but he
fixates on the payment technology that can allow other to buy them semi-
anonymously and securely in the privacy of their own homes, while ignoring
TCP/IP or PHP or whatever browser that needs to be used in the same
transaction.

This seems like an agenda but experience has thought me that I shouldn't
attribute to malice what can be adequately explained by incompetence. On the
topic of what a blockchain is and what it enables, Thomas is ignorant but also
incredibly unaware of his own privilege.

I need a public, decentralised blockchain, smart-contracts and cryptoeconomics
to bootstrap digital economies that don't rely on advertising or selling
user's data. I also need them to help bring electric power, clean water and
food to people that don't buy drugs online with the tokens I create. You know
why? Because they are too busy trying to survive failed nation-states.

Thomas, if you read this, please consider that your opinion is your own and
you do have the right to express it anyway you want but for now the only thing
you've accomplished is that I will stop using and advising Solarwinds to my
customers.

~~~
icebraining
Sounds like another example of the politician's fallacy. Yes, people need
those thing, but one can recognize that while still disagreeing that the
blockchain will in any significant way help with that. And that kind of
argument - "either you're with me or you hate poor people in failed nation-
states!" \- is just emotional manipulation.

~~~
decentralised
I might feel more emotional about this because I'm involved right?

From my perspective, I'm not appealing to your feelings, I'm telling you that
buying drugs is a very small portion of what makes cryptocurrencies relevant
and blockchain based commerce a necessity.

I was just at a talk where Steward Brand, a man known for the Whole Earth
Catalog, the Hackers Conferences, the Mother of all Demos as well as the Trips
festival (early SF psy-scene) was showing incredible vitality and enthusiasm
about what the Ethereum community is accomplishing right now.

Before that, there was this fantastic presentation by Glen Weyl from Radical
Markets fame who has a vision for empowering under-privileged and under-
represented that relies on blockchain. His work with Vitalik Buterin and
others
([https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3243656))
on Liberal Radicalism is a step forward towards funding of commons and
allowing communities to self-organise.

At no point during the last 5 days did I hear one person at this conference
mention buying drugs with cryptos.

------
vidanay
What happens when blockchain "databases" grow to multiple terrabytes or
petabytes? This presents a huge barrier to spinning up a new validation
(mining) node. Are there plans for sharding blockchains?

~~~
zeroxfe
Yes, there are (and some that already do), but doing it correctly is actually
pretty complicated. Checkout Ethereum's sharding docs:
[https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-
FAQs](https://github.com/ethereum/wiki/wiki/Sharding-FAQs)

~~~
vidanay
Wow, that's some light reading for later!

------
supermatt
Whilst I agree with the general statement of this article, it seems the author
doesnt understand that there are different kinds of "blockchain" than that
used by bitcoin

------
manishsharan
I wish all universities would put student transcripts on a public blockchain,
while addressing privacy concerns.

~~~
icebraining
Why?

~~~
manishsharan
It would make it possible to trust the academic credentials presented by
foreign applicants. Currently this process is very cumbersome. Some
unversities require applicants to submit notarized transcripts to thirdparty
for verification. The process is long and painful. And if the applicant wants
to apply in multiple Universities, then they have to get multiple notarized
copies of their transcripts. And if they want to apply for post grad , they
have to repeat the process for getting notarized transcripts.

~~~
icebraining
Seems like you'd be better off by a PDF digitally signed by the university
(with the public key hosted on their website, for verification).

I just saved with a few thousand dollars. Where should I send the bill? :D

------
snambi
Seems like a database marketing guy attacking its competitor. LOL

------
equalarrow
Here we go again..

First issue with the post: "Blockchain is also the driving force behind
cryptocurrencies, allowing Bitcoin owners to purchase drugs on the internet
without the hassle of showing their identity."

Let's see, there's this thing called _cash_ and you don't need an id to buy
drugs with it as well. Weapons can be purchased easily with it. Hits can be
put out on people with it. Basically, anything bad in the world anyone would
want to do that requires a payment, can be done with cash. The biggest
'offender' in this - the US dollar.

Next: "Put another way, blockchain is a database—one that is never backed up,
grows forever, and takes minutes or hours to update a record. Sounds amazing!"

Bullshit - in regard to backing up. Of course it doesn't need to be 'backed
up'. It exists in its entirety across the globe, replicated on many thousands
of machines, in many different countries. Hmmm, sounds like 'big replication'
problem solved. (Marc Andreessen likes it anyway:
[https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-
matters/](https://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/01/21/why-bitcoin-matters/)) The
fact is, it is amazing because it's been running like this for over a decade
now with NO HACKS, no data breaches, no hiding of anything based on this
scandal or the next. No one company owns it. No one government owns it. And
it's worth billions of dollars (meh). It does sound amazing to me.

"Blockchain should make your system more trustworthy, but it does the
opposite. Blockchain pushes the burden of trust onto individuals adding
transactions to the blockchain. This is how all distributed systems work. The
burden of trust goes from a central entity to all participants. And this is
the inherent problem with blockchain."

Snooze, bullshit... It is a FACT nowadays that the centralization of the
internet has been bad for it. Even the inventor of it has come out against it.
Putting trust in a third party is never a good idea in my mind. Strong
encryption exists and it empowers the individual to USE IT. When I make a
bitcoin transaction, I sign that transaction as valid. Me. I don't need a bank
or a government or any other third party to make this happen. This is lost on
many people, but having the freedom to transact securely and encrypt YOUR data
is about as important of a concept as there can be nowadays. There are many
government and corporate entities that do not want you to have this capability
(I'm looking at you 'Senator' Feinstein..). You may have to trust Apple to
provide 'secure' environments to run your/others apps, but they are not
working in your interests and will change course as soon as it suits their
profits.

Anyway, this is a stupid article, to be blunt. It's from someone who is
rallying against the marketing of blockchain and instead of taking on those
messages/issues/marketing directly, he falls into the same trap as the rest of
the naysayers.

If you talk to a _real_ blockchain/crypto developer/advocate, they will
probably tell you this: "if you want to make a immutable, open, distributed
transactional database that isn't blindingly fast, then using a blockchain
that has cryptographically signed transactions might be a good idea.".
Ethereum has taken this a step further with smart contracts, which, have more
or less worked.

But NO ONE I know or talk to on a day to day is saying use a blockchain for
your app database needs. And anyone who does, does not know what they are
talking about and should probably be fired from any development position they
hold.

What is happening right now in this space is the smart people have their heads
down and are cranking on the next generation of tech that everyone will be
using in 5-10 years. The smart investors see this as well and are all
positioning themselves as we speak. I personally stopped working on _legacy_
tech last year and am 100% exclusive on crypto and blockchain products.

I have already seen this movie before twice: the first episode was called the
web, the second was called mobile. So, hate if you will but it won't change
anything. The early adopter wave is at the end and we'll see more mass
adoption in the coming years. Good luck!

TLDR; stupid article, known inaccuracies, known typical trolling content. Move
along..

~~~
icebraining
Nitpick: that was the creator of the Web, not of the Internet.

