is there any legitimate use of blockchains?
-
There is debate over whether a git history is a blockchain or a DAG (Directed Acyclical Graph). I'd say it was the latter.
wrote last edited by [email protected]Who says blockchains cant also form a DAG?
Its a blockchain because each block contains a digest of the previous block(s), which creates a tamper-evident chain of digests for all history.Its just a type of blockchain, just like a subaru is a type of car.
You might have grown up thinking "all cars have 4 wheels", but my subaru has a fifth wheel in the back and its still a car because having exactly 4 wheels it not the defining charcteristic of cars.
-
Who says blockchains cant also form a DAG?
Its a blockchain because each block contains a digest of the previous block(s), which creates a tamper-evident chain of digests for all history.Its just a type of blockchain, just like a subaru is a type of car.
You might have grown up thinking "all cars have 4 wheels", but my subaru has a fifth wheel in the back and its still a car because having exactly 4 wheels it not the defining charcteristic of cars.
Personally I'd say the distinction comes with the decentralisation being enforced. Git has it as a feature but each copy of a git repository isn't reliant on every other copy. It's asymmetric.
-
It was an innovative way to use a blockchain/Merkle path, too. Even if you'd argue money but made in a different, harder to police way is a bad thing, it was new.
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.
-
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.
Sort of? Satoshi had anti-government objectives for sure, although you're right that Bitcoin was supposed to be usable for small and everyday transactions as well.
-
I would argue against blockchains being a database... its more of a 'signed sequential log' than a database.
Well, Wikipedia describes it sufficiently vague: "a database is an organized collection of data". But is a linked list on its own a database? I'd say the blockchain itself is the data structure but any software using it is most likely a database.
-
Gods unchained is a digital TCG that is the only good use of NFTs (and thus Blockchain) that I can think of.
The idea of NFTs is you have a specific instance of a thing that you can trade around. NFT art is stupid, because at the end of the day it's a jpg. However, with a digital TCG, each NFT can represent a singular copy of a digital trading card. It brings back the "trading" aspect of a digital TCG, made more convenient than physical cards due to digital transfers.
No way. There are many ways to introduce artificial scarcity to digital goods, and no it is not a new or good use of the tech.... Artificial scarcity is a huge part of all of the world's problems.
-
because it means that the majority controls the data and not a centralized authority.
Only until it doesn't. A centralized authority could overwhelm and become the majority. Or more concretely, the US government has the resources to more than double the contribution to Bitcoin, thus giving it complete control.
Nothing is perfect, but once a blockchain network is big enough it becomes near impossible to overtake.
Maybe currently, if the US government really wants to, they could dedicate a few trillion dollars to take over the bitcoin network. But it would make no sense to put that much effort into what would be mostly pointless. And if bitcoin ever reaches a point where it is a full on threat to the dollar then it's network would probably be too big for any nation to overtake alone.
So you are not wrong in theory, but in practice it is near impossible.
-
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?? -
Personally I'd say the distinction comes with the decentralisation being enforced. Git has it as a feature but each copy of a git repository isn't reliant on every other copy. It's asymmetric.
Git uses signed blocks for centralization... you can see that the official linux kernel is signed by linus torvalds... but all of this is irrelevant because blockchains are a datastructure that is indepenant from the concept of centralization. It is just a chain of blocks... proof-of-work and signing are about centralization but they are different concepts.
-
Could you elaborate a bit how blockchain enables something unique here? I see that it enables trade between users, but if a single company controls the game and I assume supply of new cards, does the blockchain aspect for trading really matter?
Trading itself is basic and doesn't need a blockchain. I guess with it you have it implemented in a public and tamper proof way, but that second part doesn't seem to matter to me if the source is centralized.
So what exactly is gained from this approach over just your average ingame auction house?
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
How is this different from MODO?
wrote last edited by [email protected]Not sure what that is, searching doesn't help
-
No way. There are many ways to introduce artificial scarcity to digital goods, and no it is not a new or good use of the tech.... Artificial scarcity is a huge part of all of the world's problems.
wrote last edited by [email protected]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.
-
Not sure what that is, searching doesn't help
Magic Online with Digital Objects, also known as Magic Online
-
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's really difficult to be anonymous with a credit card
-
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]Why is mining a nessecary part? Is it only to keep the quantity of units in circulation in check? And why is that nessecary? Is there an equivalent fixed amount of USD that is in circulation?
Why can't it just be a ledger of fixed qty where nodes get paid a fee for handling transactions and keeping the blockchain updated instead of proof of busywork? Why does it need to be so wasteful of electricity? Why is it so slow? Will it ever be as fast and cheap as an osko payment? I can (and have) sent $40,000 to another person from my bank account and it took under 10 seconds for them to receive it, even though they bank with a different entity.
-
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?
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.
-
Magic Online with Digital Objects, also known as Magic Online
If wotc closes down modo, you're left SOL.
Because transactions and ownership are not controlled by the hosting company, I believe there's opportunity to keep the game going even after the company closes doors.
Long shot, but it's the first peek at "digital ownership" where you actually own something, independent of the company that gave it to you, they can easily be traded.
-
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?
Yes. Tracking stock shares would prevent dark pools and naked short selling to some degree.
That's also why it will never happen.
-
Git uses signed blocks for centralization... you can see that the official linux kernel is signed by linus torvalds... but all of this is irrelevant because blockchains are a datastructure that is indepenant from the concept of centralization. It is just a chain of blocks... proof-of-work and signing are about centralization but they are different concepts.
wrote last edited by [email protected]I'm not sure I follow how (de)centralisation can be a different concept from blockchains when the definition of a blockchain is something like a ledger-like data structure which is immutable, decentralised and distributed.
Meanwhile with git, one user can unilaterally change the history by hard resetting and force pushing; then the other "nodes" just have to accept the changes.
-
I'm not sure I follow how (de)centralisation can be a different concept from blockchains when the definition of a blockchain is something like a ledger-like data structure which is immutable, decentralised and distributed.
Meanwhile with git, one user can unilaterally change the history by hard resetting and force pushing; then the other "nodes" just have to accept the changes.
Idk where you got that definition.... a block chain is just a chain of blocks....
If someone unilaterally forces a history change, that will be apparent to everyone and they can choose to reject those changes...
