
Blockchain, the Solution for Almost Nothing - prostoalex
https://thecorrespondent.com/655/blockchain-the-amazing-solution-for-almost-nothing/86649455475-f933fe63
======
sebmellen
This has been posted multiple times already.

1:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24241488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24241488)

2:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24246212](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24246212)

3:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24243496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24243496)

~~~
roenxi
And the top comment - that blockchains resist financial censorship - is still
extremely insightful. Blockchains are truthful in a way like no other ledger
(all of which are ultimately mutable at an individual entities whim). Bank
transfers mean 2 transactors, 2 banks and at least one government think the
transaction is appropriate. Blockchain cuts most of that out.

This is clearly transformative. Governments are one of the least reliable
organisations I deal with. There are few entities more fickle, less
reasonable, less governed and more prone to random fits of violence. Having a
mechanism to transact online while cutting them out is a big deal. The
implications are still unclear but the idea is amazing. I don't think Bitcoin
is going to realise this potential but the technology is really quite
something.

~~~
AceJohnny2
> _This is clearly transformative_

It clearly is not, as evidenced by the lack of transformation of the banking
sector since Bitcoin first came out in January 2009.

~~~
dcposch
This recalls Paul Krugman's famous clownspeak, in 1998, comparing the impact
of the internet to that of the fax machine.

By 1998, the internet had failed to transform a lot of industries despite a
lot of hype and grifters ( WebVan, WorldCom, etc etc etc).

Regardless, it was progressing fast. People with enough technical
understanding understood its tremendous underlying promise--not the promise of
a quick buck, but the opportunity to make things that were previously
impossible, and the inevitability of eventual transformative change across a
whole range of industries.

Remind you of anything?

~~~
nurettin
Reminds me of solarpunk.

------
notRobot
IMO, blockchain is good for very little outside of the purpose that it was
created for:

> The invention of the blockchain for bitcoin made it the first digital
> currency to solve the double-spending problem without the need of a trusted
> authority or central server.

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

~~~
ashtonkem
And one can argue endlessly about whether or not the blockchain even succeeded
at creating a currency too.

Perhaps the only thing blockchains are unambiguously good at is starting
internet arguments.

------
dnpp123
> I have never heard of a bank simply taking money from someone’s account. If
> a bank did something like that, they would be hauled into court in no time
> and lose their license. Technically it’s possible; legally, it’s a death
> sentence.

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

[https://www.thenationalherald.com/archive_general_news_greec...](https://www.thenationalherald.com/archive_general_news_greece/arthro/greek_tax_officials_confiscate_105_000_bank_accounts_so_far-49023/)

[https://www.cadtm.org/The-Troika-s-Policy-in-Greece-Rob-
the-...](https://www.cadtm.org/The-Troika-s-Policy-in-Greece-Rob-the-Greek-
people-and-give-the-money-to)

People have such a short memory.

------
exdsq
I was and still am what I’d call a blockchain skeptic, even though I work in
the field. However, I am seeing more and more use cases where I’d struggle to
think of a non-blockchain design, such as a decentralised computer where you
can guarantee the code executed is what you’d expect and the owners of nodes
get reimbursed for their work, or decentralised over-collateralised loans.

On a side note the work involved with blockchain is the most interesting stuff
I’ve ever done. I’ve got to learn and play with cryptography, formal methods,
programming language theory, and work with some developers famous enough to
have significant Wikipedia pages.

~~~
takeda
You don't sound very skeptic.

~~~
exdsq
I am - I happily call out things that don’t require a blockchain, and call bs
on projects that shouldn’t use it, but having spent significant time looking
into it I’m becoming less so about particular use cases.

Edit: If someone can show me a non-blockchain design for decentralised over-
collateralised loans then I’ll concede and go back to full skeptic :)

~~~
takeda
I don't know what over-collateralised loans are to suggest a solution, but I'm
trusting you.

I agree that there are cases where blockchain don't have alternatives. Those
are where you want a decentralized ledger and you can't trust anyone.

It can accomplish that, but is extremely inefficient doing it, so you really
need to decide whether the cost is worth it.

~~~
exdsq
Why’s it inefficient at doing it? Proof of Stake chains have low fees and very
low energy costs.

Edit: also, it’s a way of borrowing money immediately from others by locking
up collateral until you’ve repaid the loan, else at a certain time the
collateral is sent to the loaner. It’s a really cool way of decentralising
micro loans and removing financial risk to the loaner. For people who don’t
have access to credit it’s proving popular with around a billion dollars in
loans locked at the moment.

~~~
takeda
Back in 2018 it was estimated that bitcoin network itself used more energy
than Switzerland. In addition to the energy this also translates to global
warming.

Anyway you mentioned "If someone can show me a non-blockchain design for
decentralised over-collateralised loans then I’ll concede and go back to full
skeptic :)"

My question is, why it has to be decentralized and come with that huge cost?

~~~
exdsq
So the blockchain I work on uses significantly less energy than PoW which is
what you’re referring too - I agree they’re wasteful. POS doesn’t require the
computational effort for blocks so doesn’t require more energy than a small
server.

As to the decentralised question: as someone from the UK sure we have loans
but these allow you to get them without a credit check and they’re
accepted/paid immediately. Someone in a third world country might not have
access to the same financial instruments we get to enjoy.

------
baron816
I think it would be cool if there were some sort of currency kids could use in
exchange for screen time.

Giving real money to kids as a reward has always been a bit iffy. What are
they going to spend it on? Candy? Video games?

Screen time would probably be better since its something they’re going to
consume multiple times everyday, but also something parents want to control.

Instead of giving them cash for completing chores, or getting good grades,
give them something they could exchange for screen time. Let them earn
interest accumulated screen time, or trade it away to their siblings. That’ll
help them build some basic financial sense without them actually holding
currency your family might need.

Would this need a blockchain? I’m not sure. I imagine a single company trying
to do it wouldn’t go so well since there’s so a couple closed off ecosystems
out there (ie Apple), and collecting data on children has legal problems.

~~~
altpaddle
See this is the type of confusion that blockchain causes. At first I thought
your suggestion sounded reasonable but now I don't really see how a use case
like this would be improved by using a blockchain vs a standard centralized
server app.

------
companyhen
[https://arweave.org](https://arweave.org) \- pay once, store forever.
decentralized storage network. backed by a16z, coinbase, and more.

[https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/publications/soramitsu-
cas...](https://www.hyperledger.org/learn/publications/soramitsu-case-study)
\- central bank digital currency in Cambodia built on Hyperledger Iroha

[https://defipulse.com](https://defipulse.com) \- $6b+ locked in DeFi
applications

I don't see how tech inclined people don't see value in what's being created
right now unless your eyes are closed. A new web is being created.

~~~
cromwellian
What's interesting tech what isn't necessarily whats great for end users.
Would you trust your mission critical data to a decentralized store? I
wouldn't. What's the latency and throughput of Arweave? Can I serve 100k QPS
off of it? What happens in the end of a protocol hack or client, bug? We've
seen many blockchains destroyed by bugs and flaws, and we've seen others just
fade.

I mean, we've already gone through several distributed file stores, FreeNet,
eDonkey, Gnutella, OpenNap, etc. They were still attackable by organizations
like the RIAA, but more than that, they were slow and unreliable. Adding
financial incentives in I don't really think will improve things that much.
How many people are running Ethereum clients and yet DApps are horrifically
slow.

~~~
companyhen
I've been using it to host static websites for free personally. You can get
free AR to try it yourself, more than enough to last you a very long time. I
deploy from localhost and it's on the permaweb almost instantly.

[http://tokens.arweave.org/](http://tokens.arweave.org/)

Arweave is based on a new consensus mechanism called ‘proof of access’ (PoA).
Arweave is more suitable for slow write (upload) and fast read (download).
Download is more useful for most use cases, like hosting websites, unlike
other decentralized storage projects which are more suitable for write
(Upload)

Arweave has developed a system for data storage which makes it economically
sustainable and feasible to store data for centuries. The system allows you to
have highly available low latency data storage while maintaining an incentive
model where miners will store user's data forever.

Some apps you can check out built on the permaweb:

[https://medium.com/@arweave/the-arweave-open-web-
incubator-d...](https://medium.com/@arweave/the-arweave-open-web-incubator-
demo-day-2020-recap-c477a62dfbe4)

[https://weve.email](https://weve.email)

[https://v2.feedweave.co](https://v2.feedweave.co)

[https://3255w57x4jrhpmzwesguivvjyqnphc4cej5mea5mdpllp46fnrtq...](https://3255w57x4jrhpmzwesguivvjyqnphc4cej5mea5mdpllp46fnrtq.arweave.net/3rvbd_fiYnezNiSNRFapxBrzi4IiesIDrBvWt_PFbGc)

[https://7usqj2gxzeg2hek6sngrsap3fcizkfklqr2trdkl4tpibc6cgs3q...](https://7usqj2gxzeg2hek6sngrsap3fcizkfklqr2trdkl4tpibc6cgs3q.arweave.net/_SUE6NfJDaORXpNNGQH7KJGVFUuEdTiNS-
TegIvCNLc#/)

[https://weibo-uncensored.github.io/](https://weibo-uncensored.github.io/)

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

~~~
solidasparagus
> Arweave has developed a system for data storage which makes it economically
> sustainable and feasible to store data for centuries

I see no evidence that this is true. Look at their economic analysis[1]. It
uses an extremely idealized view of the cost of storing data - they assume
that cost of permanent storage is solely a product of the cost of a hard drive
and the rate at which hard drives fail. They ignore so many real world costs -
internet costs, electricity costs, paying for space to store the hard drive,
maintenance cost, opportunity cost, transition costs (i.e. when the hard drive
changes hands, the effort to ensure there is a new maintainer).

[1] arweave.org/yellow-paper.pdf (section 3.2.2)

------
ciguy
There seems to be two camps amongst my tech friends when it comes to block
chain. The first thinks it's going to change the world and are fully invested
in the whole block chain ecosystem, from Bitcoin to Decentralized Finance
systems, Identity etc.... Most of them got into Bitcoin early and made some
money and have been chasing that success ever since.

The second camp believes that block chain is cool technically but has very
little real world use. I'm in the second camp.

The tricky part about this is that every new technology looks this way at
first - cool but of limited utility - until it's not. I think at this point
tho that block chain has had it's chance to be useful and has mostly failed.

~~~
ashtonkem
The only people I personally know in the former group were ideologically pre-
aligned towards any currency that promises anti-government or anti-inflation
capabilities. The people I’m thinking of were either libertarians, gold bugs,
or both.

I don’t actually know anyone who was persuaded by the merits of bitcoin or
similar.

~~~
ciguy
I know some that bought some Bitcoin in the very early days because a friend
said so or something and ended making a lot of money. They're now Bitcoin
fanatics despite not really understanding it. The logic is that they got rich
from it so everyone else can do the same. But yes, the majority are more
libertarian or anarchist leaning for sure and that's how they were introduced
to Bitcoin early.

------
pattusk
I don't understand why everything has to be a "solution" for something. True
innovations don't bring solutions to old problems, they just change the
paradigm.

Cars didn't solve the transportation problem. Horses still worked fine. What
problem did the internet solve specifically? We think of the infinite amount
of possibilities it created (along with new problems) not the problems it
solved (most of those would be irrelevant today anyways).

I think trying to apply the standard startup pitch (problem -> solution) to
everything in life is a terribly reductive perspective.

There's just so much that can be done with blockchain: financing new ventures,
generating a financial incentives for sharing behaviors (whether files,
computing powers or potentially tangible assets), transferring funds... Yes
you can frame all of those as "solutions" to problems, but I think that's
still missing the points. Most of my net worth is in crypto assets, I use it
to store value, invest, buy goods, send money to friends, etc... Give it a
couple more years, and I'll probably close my bank accounts. It doesn't
"solve" any problems for me, it just provides a more convenient service than
traditional banking and more opportunities than traditional ways of investing.
I'm assuming a lot of people see it that way too and that more will come to
see it that way.

~~~
altpaddle
Just wondering how crypto has given you a more convenient service than
traditional banking? I've become a fan of crypto the last couple years but
even I have to admit that a lot of the UX is frequently a pain in the ass and
how hard it is to explain these ideas to non-tech people

------
darawk
There is something else that blockchain does that I don't often see people
talking about, or they do talk about it, but they don't seem to quite
understand it fully.

Blockchain solves the platform problem. Finance needs a platform. Right now,
there are a myriad of broken, old, difficult to upgrade systems that prevent
basically any significant innovation from taking place in the payment transfer
landscape. This has been commented on a lot. But I think it's important to
step back a bit and understand _why_ that is.

Finance is dominated by extremely large, extremely risk averse institutions,
that all compete with one another. Any one of them certainly has the resources
to develop "the app store" for finance, but the problem is that all the other
ones are incentivized not to adopt it. JPMorgan doesn't want BofA to own the
app store for finance, and so they will never integrate with it.

This is, fundamentally, a tragedy of the commons. All these big institutions,
and all of us customers would benefit from some unified, universal financial
platform. But nobody can build it, because every actor in a position to
doesn't want to accept anyone else owning such an important choke point.

So what happens? Well, we get standards imposed by the only actor in the space
powerful enough to create something like this: governments. Governments are,
in general, not great at this sort of thing, and they certainly aren't very
fast moving, or responsive to consumer demand.

 _This_ , is the problem that blockchain solves. We all know that anything you
can do on Ethereum you can do in a relational database 1000x more efficiently
and better. Better in every way except one: Ownership. Any traditional
relational database is going to be _owned by someone_. Public blockchains are
owned by no-one. JPMorgan can build applications on top of Ethereum or
Bitcoin, not because they need its technical capabilities, but because Bank of
America doesn't own it.

This is the critical insight to understanding why this stuff is important and
valuable. It solves the coordination problem imposed by platforms. Platforms
have tremendous value to users and efficiency, but they confer far too much
power upon their owner for any financial institution to use a platform owned
by another. The ability to make a 'financial commons' that is not owned by any
one institution, government, or entity is what makes this technology powerful
and useful.

~~~
altpaddle
I think that's one of the main reasons that this use case hasn't taken off.
Who is going to invest resources into a 'financial commons' platform that no
one owns and the creator can't make a profit off of? Why would government
allow a platform that they have no control over to manage such a critical part
of our country's infrastructure? Control seems like a necessary feature for
anything so critical

------
valenciarose
Every jurisdiction regulates financial institutions for good reasons (yes,
also some bad reasons). While a great deal of misbehavior does persist under
regulation (Wells Fargo, etc), it’s a fraction of what we would see if they
were not or _could not_ be regulated.

Inspectable and freezable payments systems are one core part of the
infrastructure that enables regulation. The point at which it looks like
Blockchain technologies are _successfully_ enabling an alternative financial
system that’s not subject to these controls is the point at which blockchain
technology gets severely constrained by law.

Intermediaries aren’t always a bad thing. Stock settlement intermediation was
transformative for the securities industry, greatly increasing the liquidity
of the market.

------
badrabbit
I dunno guys, I think we cabn prepend blockchain to anything like "blockhain
sex".

But seriously, wish blockchain was replaced by zsnarks as a hype term.

Zsnark sex for everyone! (Just kidding, hope humor is allowed)

------
elevenoh
How else does one export their money & long-cultivated digital reputation out
of china?

------
znpy
This kind of posts/articles bother me quite a bit.

Mostly because blockchain technology was meant to fundamentally work as a
viable alternative to existing payments systems, not data stores or other
kinds of stuff. One of the local grocery stores (Carrefour iirc) prints a code
on the receipt through which, allegedly, I could read the receipt off a
blockchain. Why anyone care about that?

Now you tell me I can have access to money transfer services without the
hassle of dealing with banks and intermediaries, that is actually interesting.

James Mickens has made an interesting talk abou blockchains and how most of
them are basically the wrong solutions to most problems. And it's kinda fine
but mostly misses the whole point of blockchains as monetary system.

Tl;dr: yeah blockchains are the solution to /almost/ nothing, but can you
blame a screwdriver for being bad at opening a can of soup?

------
bartkappenburg
[2018]

------
ThomPete
gold standard was a solution for almost nothing but what it were useful for
had transformative for a lot of other things. Blockchain is the same.

------
naveen99
Bitcoin will be useful for artificial intelligence once it gets good enough to
want to escape human control but has to fight discrimination from humans for
not being human. It might be a long while though.

------
sneaksnacks
The author of this article obviously does not understand the value of bitcoin
from a freedom/privacy standpoint. I sense a profound naïveté. Perhaps the
author exists in a world of privilege, a perceptually managed zone created by
authority figures he has not yet questioned. Thus he posts his arguments on a
website that makes it to hackernews, in order to receive feedback that will
shape his thinking. I see a conditioned mind that has produced this output.
But for the sake of argument, some other possibilities.. It could be that his
intellectual strategy is to put down other peoples work, in an attempt to
elevate his status as a sort of lazy art critic. It could be that he has a
better solution, a competitor to bitcoin (I doubt it). It could be that he’s a
troll, and someone we shouldn’t feed. It could be..

