is there any legitimate use of blockchains?
-
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?
Maybe Odysee and monero????
Those are the only BlockChain technology platforms I can think off -
The lack of a trusted central authority is key. If you have at least one authority you can trust just barely enough, the whole idea of a blockchain collapses. There needs to be an urgent trust crisis for this to work.
Itโs also a problem of ownership. For exchanges between banks, a blockchain is better because no bank would be the owner of the database.
Plus itโs safer because altering a database is usually trivial while altering a blockchain is virtually impossible.
-
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?
Not a scam but maybe over engineered and difficult to sell for most uses? Theoretically blockchain could be used for all sorts of applications, but apart from a bunch of startups it's not taken off. Maybe it's just not compelling financially for businesses.
For an established business or organisation It'd be a big leap to switch over to blockchain but the benefits are not immediately relisable or tangible in a business setting. In a world where short term profits already trump long term investment, it does make sense that business are not rushing to adopt blockchain.
I'd think of it like this - companies don't have the foresight to invest in IT and security; they slash IT budgets, use equipment until the last possible moment deferring expensive upgrades and don't put money in to protect themselves from cyber crime. For example, big banks quite literally still use systems that are decades out of date.
If companies behave like that already why would they invest in switching to the block chain? The benefits are long term and not easily understood. It's hard to sell investment in a technology on blockchain when most people struggle to understand what it is, let alone what it's benefits may be.
Most people only know about it because of cryptocurrency but even then don't really understand how it works, and that usage scenario is world's away from the other theoretical uses. Cryptocurrency makes money because it's a speculative asset (at the moment at least). Other uses at best prevent fraud and companies are generally useless at trying to prevent fraud. When they do, it's focused around the actual transactions not the ledger. They don't see someone "cooking the books" being the priority problem to solve.
Data security and verifying is not a priority for companies. If companies are spending money at the moment, it's short term nonsense such as the AI bubble. And public organisations seldom have the imagination or freedom/resource to be an early adoptor a new technology.
So, no I don't think it's a scam. I think it's something that is difficult to implement and sell in the real world. And all people can see at present is "crypto currency goes up in value" not the actual underlying benefit of cryptocurency as a currency. Crytpcurrency is doing well currently because it is scarce and has become an asset bubble, not because the blockchain itself is the star.
-
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?
Using it as a currency which requires no third party for transactions is a legitimate use case. See current payment processors vs Steam conflict for why it may be a good idea. There are a lot of times when it's not a good idea either.
However the price must be reasonably stable and transaction cost low. Don't think any of the major CCs qualify.
-
Could this be a true voting record? Votes would be transparent, but as you say, unalterable.
wrote last edited by [email protected]
I appreciate that when you find a relevant xkcd, the explainxkcd page also has relevant information to the discussion:
https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2030%3A_Voting_Software
When the reporter follows the interview up with a mention of blockchain technology, Megan and Cueball reflexively tell the reporter to avoid any voting system using the technology at all costs. Blockchain is a relatively new technology that is intended to solve some computer security issues by making it difficult to doctor old data. However, in the process of solving the old computer security issues, it has introduced new computer security issues that have not yet been ironed out; for instance, it doesn't solve input fraud issues, only data-doctoring fraud, so if a program caused the voting machine to record a vote for candidate B whenever a vote for candidate A was cast (such a program could be uploaded to the voting machines through USB, or through the internet which the voting machine must be connected to for blockchain), blockchain would not prevent it. Blockchain has also had a large number of high-profile scams, thefts, and implementations with critical security holes. Thus, Megan and Cueball may not trust this blockchain solution because of this history.
Blockchain is really great at preventing post-facto data changes. With blockchain you can somewhat guarantee that no one comes in after the election and changes the votes on the machines. (Unless they're handling the blockchain in a stupid fashion, for example without the distribution.) But you cannot prevent tampering with the machines themselves, such as making them record votes that didn't happen, or tampering the data before it's written to the blockchain.
Also, the security issues that Blockchain solves could also be solved via write-once memory, which would be more secure and more difficult to doctor.
Most computer security specialists are more worried about programs that randomly and/or deliberately misreport a vote, than people changing the votes after they're already recorded, so blockchain would solve an issue that most computer security specialists are less worried about, while causing new issues (the perpetual internet connection among them).
-
Using it as a currency which requires no third party for transactions is a legitimate use case. See current payment processors vs Steam conflict for why it may be a good idea. There are a lot of times when it's not a good idea either.
However the price must be reasonably stable and transaction cost low. Don't think any of the major CCs qualify.
Swift exists though? There is really no need for Credit cards or other payment processors.
-
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 doesnโt cover the same use cases.
Good summary, a few additions from my side:
- Being public is not required. E.g. banks could form an internal block chain shared only with other banks.
- Blockchains are a database. An immutable and usually distributed database.
-
However git can be considered to be based on blockchain so in that sense, absolutely.
How would that work?
-
Swift exists though? There is really no need for Credit cards or other payment processors.
Why can't I use swift to buy anything of eg steam? I genuinely don't know but there has to be a reason.
-
Just a big scam.
The only remotely valid use case I ever head was for a Write Once Read Many (worm) audit log but regular databases are still a better fit.
That's effectively what git does.
-
However git can be considered to be based on blockchain
Thatโs really stretching the definition of blockchain.
Blockchain is about providing consensus without relying on a central authority. If there are two variants of the same blockchain, anyone should be able to independently verify which one is the real one. Git doesnโt do this.
-
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?
Anything that requires a public, immutable database. Land registry would be one example. Notary public for electronic documents would be another.
You can leverage the majority consensus to create a trusted software build system. Each block would be a package build
-
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?
Some countries are considering using blockchain in the future for their land title registry.
I read something about potentially using blockchain the future while using onland (ontarios land registry service) but i can't seem to find the page that mentions it.
-
That's one definition of blockchain. Since the solution to the Byzantine Generals' problem in Bitcoin is done by Proof of Work it can't be said to be a part of the blockchain definition since there are many (most?) blockchains that don't use PoW. Some companies peddling "blockchain solutions" even use central authorities.
So, with "blockchain" just being a chain of cryptographically verified blocks then git indeed fulfills that definition.
-
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?
No. From the most base concepts, some authority still needs to recognize and enforce the contents of the blockchain (ownership, currency, whatever). If an authority is already trusted to act on this data, they might as well be the secure custodian of it. Or, if not entirely trusted, a third party trustee. At very best the blockchain offers complete transparency and auditability, but this is the trust you place into any given system on your end. If you do not place trust in a system, what are you doing engaging with it?
Supporters of blockchain generally don't accept these arguments because they are anti-authority, and without passing further comment on that, fair enough. But that means it will only ever be relegated to buying drugs on the internet and scams.
-
Good summary, a few additions from my side:
- Being public is not required. E.g. banks could form an internal block chain shared only with other banks.
- Blockchains are a database. An immutable and usually distributed database.
Also worth noting that the computations don't have to be expensive either, it's only there in cryptocurrencies to artificially limit the number of blocks generated on a public system and tie it into the reward system.
So for a bank, that could be a plain single iteration of a sha256 hash, and once share everyone agrees those were the transactions and you can't go back and change one without having to change the whole chain.
Make it sha1 and you basically have git.
A blockchain is more or less just an append-only database. Or even an append-only replication log with built-in checksums.
-
Why can't I use swift to buy anything of eg steam? I genuinely don't know but there has to be a reason.
Good question why corporations turned to payment processors when we were simply able to wire money from our bank accounts to others.
-
An easy way for employers to verify that your certifications are authentic.
Tangentially, a lot of scientists do research on topics that do not see application in everyday life immediately.
I can't think of any examples off the top of my head, but I remember reading articles on how some research bear fruit - ones with huge impacts - only decades later.
To stop research into a topic because there is no practical application now is short-sighted IMO.
wrote last edited by [email protected]OpenCerts does require institutions to be trusted partners, so this isn't permissionless. Why not just make the normal database searchable if it relies on trusting someone?
It's not that blockchain doesn't have any applications. It's just that it only solves problems in ways that are easier and better solved by other implementations. It's not that are no practical applications, it's that there aren't even any realistic theoretical applications.
-
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?
Blockchain has been โthe next big thingโ for 10+ years without making any real impact outside of cryptocurrency speculation (which is mostly a pyramid scheme). If it had any legitimate use, it would be widely used today.
-
The lack of a trusted central authority is key. If you have at least one authority you can trust just barely enough, the whole idea of a blockchain collapses. There needs to be an urgent trust crisis for this to work.
Also, if you have no trusted parties, you have a huge "First Owner" problem.
If we were to set up a blockchain to track the ownership of fluffy hats, what's to stop me from seeing your fluffy hat, and quickly registering it as mine?
