
6 alternative (and better) uses for blockchain - rbanffy
http://www.dtcollective.org.au/resources/6-alternative-and-better-uses-for-blockchain?_lrsc=a6cfc609-e795-418a-a0f9-4f2417834815
======
tonyjstark
For many of them you only need an append only ledger not a full blockchain.
And you still have to deal with the oracle problem.

Is my Picasso real? - If I trust the entity that put it into the blockchain,
then I believe so. Wait, why did I need a blockchain for that?

~~~
dreit1
Trust isn't neccesarily the only solution that blockchains solve. Lets
consider a simple example, login credentials.

Your login credentials exist on many different centralized databases, which a
service provider is responsible for managing. This leads to increased
possibility that one of the providers messes up (identity breach) and leads to
an unnecessary amount of data replication across databases.

Why do I need credentials for every single different service? Instead why
don't we store these login credentials in a blockchain so that many providers
can access these IF you let them, in a cryptographically secure way.

You PROVE your identity on the blockchain without actually letting them store
identity information on their database.

A blockchain is basically a shared resource pool where a user chooses who can
access the data that belongs to them whether it be assets, identity, or other
important data.

Service providers no longer have to be responsible for it and the user is put
back in control.

This is a much saner way of storing important things on the web

~~~
madeofpalk
Couldn't then a bad actor from obtaining >50% of computing power behind it and
manipulate it?

It always seems like you have to trust someone which still begs the question -
what's the point?

~~~
dreit1
Im all in on dBFT, so I believe in the elected delegates maintaining said
distributed database. Similarly to how governments maintain roads, I trust the
elected parties to not corrupt the database.

I think complete trustlessness is a false dichotomy. Im ok with trusting
certain parties in maintaining distributed "value databases" as one might call
them}

Edit: false dichotomy is bad phrase, idk "chasing the wrong goal?"

~~~
annabellish
The problem is that a blockchain which does not allow third party miners gains
nothing from being a blockchain, because it can be a traditional database
without losing anything at all. A blockchain which does allow third party
miners is open to attack without obscene resource investment.

~~~
dreit1
In dBFT the attack vector is a collusion attack between elected delegates. In
practice I do not see this being any more likely than a 51% hashpower attack.

However most delegated systems are still young. The only reason people believe
that 51% attacks are impossible is because it has worked for 10 years. If
delegated systems work for the same amount of time, I don't see why they wont
get the same reputation.

I think Dan Larimer gives a good argument on the situation.

[https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/response-to-vitalik-buterin-
on-...](https://steemit.com/eos/@dan/response-to-vitalik-buterin-on-eos)

Edit: His Conclusion is something many people should consider, when outright
rejecting delegated consensus.

"EOS is designed around far more realistic assumptions and logic and achieves
scalability by avoiding the dogmatic fallacies promoted by Bitcoin and
Ethereum maximalists."

------
lsowen
One thing I struggle with understanding for all these blockchain based
solutions is the fact that the "trust" aspect fails in the face of an
adversarial counterparty. For example, how do you know that the fish with id
XYZ was _really_ ethically sourced? You only know that the counterparty
asserts that fish XYZ was. The only advantage that I can see to the current
system is that you can trace that assertion back to the originator.

~~~
plopilop
What bothers me with this blockchain is, who will actually run the nodes? If
only the merchants do so, then they can also counterfeit everything just as
they want. In the end you rely as much on your trust to the merchant than with
the classical method (i.e., a tag that reads "Product of [country]", which is
way more eco[nom/log]ical.

~~~
unboxed_type
Why not to use already running platforms like Ethereum where all those
incentive issues are already solved?

~~~
majewsky
How will you use your supermarket to use Ethereum instead of their own
blockchain where they can mine as much coins as they need without wasting huge
amounts of energy?

~~~
unboxed_type
If a supplier is running its own blockchain, then it really makes little
sense. But to gain real trust of its clients, supplier will actually put it on
a public blockchain. Only then external experts will say: "yeah, this supplier
is really trustworthy". In other words, the incentive to use a public
blockchain instead of their own, private one, is to gain real trust.

------
majewsky
> US company Follow My Vote hopes to employ cryptography to protect each
> ballot against tampering from end to end, keeping votes anonymous and
> immutable on a Blockchain ledger.

Or, you know, you could just vote with papers and pens. An observer can then
watch the counting at each polling station, record the result, and verify it
against the published results (which, at least in my country, is published for
each polling station individually).

The major problem with all computer-based voting schemes is that a voting
procedure cannot be considered democratic when the vast majority of
constituents does not understand what the fuck is going on.

~~~
brokenmachine
_> the vast majority of constituents does not understand what the fuck is
going on_

Lol, this is the problem with voting in general, nothing to do with computers!

------
kennydude
> US company Follow My Vote hopes to employ cryptography to protect each
> ballot against tampering from end to end, keeping votes anonymous and
> immutable on a Blockchain ledger.

> The idea is that each voter has a private key and a unique voter ID, which
> allows them to monitor and verify that their vote is correctly recorded and
> has been tallied.

How would this ensure anonymous voting and presented in a way an everyday
person can use it, would it be any more secure over pencil and paper?

~~~
mgoetzke
I agree it wouldn't be helpful.

It is similar to the problem of DNA evidence tests. The technique can be
extremely certain, but the entire process chain must be evaluated in order to
gauge trust.

How likely is it that the evidence was correctly sampled, collected, was
actually on the victim etc.

For votes there is great benefit in having a paper process which can not be
mass forged as easily as computer votes or tallies etc. It might take longer
but it is of high importance.

------
ffwacom
bullshit

