is there any legitimate use of blockchains?
-
Git doesn’t sign commits, at least not cryptographically.
Yeah, it does...
If you barely know shit about git why wouldnt you at least try googleing before posting??It’s a bonus feature used by almost no one. I’ve never encountered a git repo which signs its commits.
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
It absolutely can't be replaced by a simple database, saying that makes me question that you truly understand the technology. Here's the important question, who owns the database and how do you know you can trust them?
Would you trust me to manage a database that holds your money? What about someone who's actively opposing you? How about a foreign nation? That's the thing blockchains solve, a decentralized 0-trust way to have an append only ledger, yes a database can be an append only ledger, but it can't be decentralized or 0-trust, that's the important thing here.
Let me give you a very recent example, Steam has been censored, and has had to remove certain games from their catalog, this happened because PayPal and other payment providers forced their hand. This is the sort of problems that arise from having someone own the database, they can dictate what you do or don't. Let me be extra clear, this sort of censorship is essentially impossible in Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies because no one controls the database.
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
blockchains are a solution looking for a problem.
-
It's really clever. I also think it was unintentional. They did not want to create a money laundering tool but a currency in its own right. That failed.
Also, this scheme only works with money involved. The miners run the system, and they get paid by creating new coins. If they cannot sell the coins to cover their costs, then there is no blockchain.
You know at a point there will no longer be a block reward for miners, instead only fees on transactions
-
its always been a ponzi scheme, the people still pedaling it, are right wingers thinking they will still strike it big some day.i once followed a yotbers channel one guy pedal lost 1mil+ from SBF crisis, and hes still doing it to this day.
i think op asked for Blockchain not Cryptocurrency
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
since a lot of replies branched towards Cryptocurrency, which is where blockchains are implemented the most in. But it isn't the sole purpose of blockchain.
It's a distributed, append only(theoretically), tamper proof data structure. Look up merkle tree, certificate distribution, etc. These comes in different shapes and sizes for storing transaction logs, to keeping track of online identity and false impersonation.
You can implement a blockchain that might not get as power hungry as crypto block chains(because mining), and it's a cool solution in distributed systems
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
The point of the blockchain is to achieve distributed consensus of what's in the database. That way, one entity can't unilaterally change what the database says.
If you have a public non-profit institution maintaining the database, obligated to serve all legal customers, with serious consequences for tampering with it, you can get pretty much everything blockchain can do, for a billionth of the computing power.
But with that system, you would lose these features:
- partially-anonymous participants
- service of all customers, even illegal ones
- immunity to court orders
-
Any application where you want to record something publicly without the possibility to alter it and in absence of a central authority.
A database requires a central authority so it doesn’t cover the same use cases.
this was a no nonsense answer, unlike the others discussing Cryptocurrency ;~;
-
Hello,
I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It's not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.
is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?
wrote last edited by [email protected]it cannot really replace a simple database. it has an integrity guarantee. not in the way that data won't get modified accidentally, but that it won't get modified onesided.
the git version control system also uses a kind of a blockchain structure. git was made by the creator of linux. a major difference is that git does not use proof of work for consensus, I think it just does not use anything for that, other than the web server's access control mechanism.
commits are built on top of a large chain of histories, and the commit ID verifies that the current state and the history of it is the exact same when you checkout that commit ID on any other computer. if you go find in the repository a commit made 3 years ago, and change that commit (this is supported by git but not recommended), either the content or the metadata like time of commit, the whole history after that also need to get rewritten to remain valid, and so all those commits will now have a new commit ID -
its always been a ponzi scheme, the people still pedaling it, are right wingers thinking they will still strike it big some day.i once followed a yotbers channel one guy pedal lost 1mil+ from SBF crisis, and hes still doing it to this day.
No less than 8 spelling or grammar mistakes, and barely on topic.
-
Before we start blaming a digital trading card game for the sins of capitalism, let's both acknowledge that "artificial scarcity" is built into games. Mario suffered "artificial scarcity" when he didn't have a red mushroom at the ready. Anything that requires "unlocking" can be argued to be artifical scarcity. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter because these are aspects of a game and not real world resources.
Every digital TCG - Hearthstone, mtg arena, etc. all already have artificial scarcity.
This is just allowing for you, as a player, to actually have a semblance of ownership over the digital goods you obtain, independent of the company you purchased it from, which is far more than any other digital platform will allow for.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Just because the artificial scarcity is digital doesn't magically make it different. If the intent is to get more money, it is exactly the same. No wait, it's even more despicable because there's no reason for actual digital scarcity.
Just like most games that were designed to eat quarters in arcade machines do not receive any honor after their time, these decisions invariably go down in history as just greedy fucks being greedy fucks.
-
You know at a point there will no longer be a block reward for miners, instead only fees on transactions
For Bitcoin, you mean. That will be in 2040 or so. Plenty of time to patch it.
-
Just because the artificial scarcity is digital doesn't magically make it different. If the intent is to get more money, it is exactly the same. No wait, it's even more despicable because there's no reason for actual digital scarcity.
Just like most games that were designed to eat quarters in arcade machines do not receive any honor after their time, these decisions invariably go down in history as just greedy fucks being greedy fucks.
wrote last edited by [email protected]It sounds like your issues are with that of games in general, which is outside of the scope of this discussion, so I don't have much to say in response. Hope you have a good day!
-
For Bitcoin, you mean. That will be in 2040 or so. Plenty of time to patch it.
Yeah I assumed we were talking about bitcoin, scarcity argument goes out the window at that point though.
-
Sure, there are a ton of things the blockchain would be great for. Also, it just so happens that nobody uses them for that because the people developing the tech only dream about using it to join the bitcoin billionaires club.
This is it. This is the real answer. The same goes for AI. The really good uses for both aren't lucrative enough, so the people with the money try to shoehorn it into places that aren't a good fit in order to justify their outrageous valuations. Rinse and repeat until the bottom falls out of the market, then sweep up the pieces and try to come up with a new grift.
-
The linux kernel, which git was created for, uses signed commits...
-
but that second part doesn't seem to matter to me if the source is centralized.
That's the thing, it's not centralized - in this game, for the first time ever in a digital TCG, if the company hosting it closes it's doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards, opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
It ain't much, and it's a long shot, but for the first time ever it's possible.
wrote last edited by [email protected]That's the thing, it's not centralized
But who is able to mint/create those cards? Anyone or just the company? That is what I was primarily getting at.
if the company hosting it closes it's doors, you still have something in your ownership that corresponds to your cards,
Yes, proof that you owned cards in a now defunct game. The question is how much value is left at that point.
opening up the possibility of others re-implementing everything.
Barring copyright/IP law allowing it, or are we disregarding that? If someone wanted to take over they might just buy out the old company and take over.
And even when starting from scratch they'd have to evaluate if honoring/adopting the existing tokens would be worth it (would give an existing player base, but in return you don't get any money from them and probably less than from a customer that starts from scratch).
A third option would be some form of foss project reviving the game. But the game seems independent of the blockchain aspect, which only tracks card ownership. Why would any such effort want to adopt a system build on artificial scarcity and profit?
-
It sounds like your issues are with that of games in general, which is outside of the scope of this discussion, so I don't have much to say in response. Hope you have a good day!
No, you're just proving to be too dumb to understand the nuance I'm aiming for.
Do you think there would be dozens of versions of Mortal Kombat if it stayed as the arcade machine? Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles allow far more people to truly engage and fall in love with it?
I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the problems of rent seeking from modern corporations, but denying them won't fix anything.
-
No, you're just proving to be too dumb to understand the nuance I'm aiming for.
Do you think there would be dozens of versions of Mortal Kombat if it stayed as the arcade machine? Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles allow far more people to truly engage and fall in love with it?
I'm sorry you're too dumb to understand the problems of rent seeking from modern corporations, but denying them won't fix anything.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles
monetization, verb: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Did they release that shit for free or something? Are you claiming "they" released dozens of versions of it after "they" stopped using the game as a source of profit?
-
Or did removing the monetization when they released it on consoles
monetization, verb: to utilize (something of value) as a source of profit
Did they release that shit for free or something? Are you claiming "they" released dozens of versions of it after "they" stopped using the game as a source of profit?
wrote last edited by [email protected]You realize making an arcade game that eats quarters for breakfast is a monetization scheme... Don't you? You realize Mortal Kombat and many, many older games started in arcades, right?
How can you be so dense as to fail to realize the similarities between microtransactions and arcade games eating quarters? Except microtransactions are much worse because they do not enable a secondary economy like arcades did.
Again, artificial scarcity is bullshit. It was BS back then, and it's WAY more BS these days. It is not something to celebrate, unless you're a piece of shit that wants to leverage things against other human beings for profit unnecessarily.
