Civil is a notable exception, though I'm not unconvinced that it couldn't be done without one.
In the end though, if blockchain is sexier / more marketable than signing messages with GPG or SSH keys then fine. At least we're getting higher integrity guarantees on data one way or another.
Moreover, at the end of the day, even DNS is a matter of "real world truth" and there's no reason a vote by miners would be particularly reliable source of this truth.
Right now, accurate propagation of settings throughout DNS kind of assumes a lot. I don’t think Namecoin captures incentives properly either, but I can imagine some blochchain system connecting the dots.
That's not an argument against building something...
> which they're far from - why is a 'central authority' inherently bad?
They're not. Sometimes you want a central authority, and sometimes you don't. Both modes can be good. But previously central authorities were necessary due to the physics of DNS. Blockchain enables a new mode. Now the two modes can compete, and we can reach a new equilibrium with both, or one can win out. That's what's cool about it.
At which point did I argue building things is bad? I actually took a lot of time to learn Ethereum smart contract development just to get to the bottom of the whole blockchain ecosystem. Learning and building are almost never bad things.
I'm not bashing the idea of competition between blockchain and traditional centralized authorities either. I'm extremely pro-competition. I'm bashing the fact that all - yes, all - blockchain applications provide negative value compared to their traditional counterparts. The argument that blockchain enthusiasts use to justify their support for such low-quality infrastructure is this philosophy that having no centralized authority is, by itself, valuable. This is what I'm bashing.
You can't switch from the ICANN, no matter which domain you chose, it depends on them, they effectively have a monopoly. I want to self host my domain name.
> What if someone spams the ledger with too many names
You need to pay in coins to register a namecoin domain so this attack won't work.
> What if someone takes domains that should be illegal for them to possess?
This should be up to courts to decide if the name is illegal and handle it over, not to some random organisation like the ICANN which has no legal basis.
> What if someone takes someone else's private key?
Same as if some gets access to your registrar password right now, nothing changes with that.
> What if an organization gets their private key stolen?
Again, same as before, nothing is improved or changed by a blockchain here.
> I don't understand the blockchain hype. A startup has certified my artwork & placed their verification on the bitcoin blockchain. Now art dealers & auctioneers can feel secure that I am the original artist. One small problem… I am not Leonardo da Vinci! https://www.verisart.com/works/23f2c64a-08c6-4a42-8013-84ac8... …
It seems to me that a reasonable test whether these ideas make sense is to ask whether they can be done without the blockchain. Most of these seem to obviously fail this test (eg the government of Hawaii is a centralized institution that clearly does not need the blockchain to mandate a change on any of the islands).
And I am heavily exposed to enterprise blockchain... This kind of half-assed thing doesn't build much of a case in favor of the industry.
I can't think of a part of meatspace more removed from the special properties of a blockchain. That's honestly dumber than blockchain iced tea or KodakCoin.
is developing a, that would use, will be using, it is possible to, as it seeks to, is building, which will be, seeking a way, has been experimenting, ...
Sounds more like a maybe future fantasy world.
"It doesn't work like that"?
The only way a 51% attack allows you to steal anything is by reverting a transaction you made that sends something from you to me, and immediately replacing it with a transaction that sends the same thing from you to yourself.
This is only useful if you convinced me to give you something in return for the money you paid me in between you sending the original transaction and subsequently reverting it. Once all is said and done, even if I can't prove it (for some definition of proving it), I still _know_ you stole from me, which has its own consequences.
51% attacks _do_, however, allow you to wreak havoc on the chain state, which can sometimes be an attack worth performing.
Companies like Bosch and Fujitsu are already creating uses for it in IoT.
There're already a few IOTA-powered electric vehicle charging stations in Europe. It's instant and fee-free, with very little overhead (no power consumption problem).
Since it cannot be mined via PoW, there are already efforts to create "mining pools" were universities can rent CPU/GPU power from "miners" using IOTA, that way miners are performing valuable computations rather than just a bunch of redundant math.
Plus the IRI is written in Java, that's totally rock the socks off the IoT world, right?