Hacker News Reader

Except the author is Bruce Schneier, world top security guru, if not arguably the most influential of it. And also your "quick" example talks about stuff outside or in the future to happen, while the article is based on current state of bitcoin in particular. Between believing Bruce and you guess who I'm going to trust in.

You obviously didn't read my other comments here if you think this is "future" stuff and not already working in real-world scenarios. Also the title does not say anything about Bitcoin, it uses the term Blockchain technology. For someone who is so professional and partial to the space, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY EXPECT a title and terminology to reflect the actual content and not to so casually and carelessly lob all Blockchain tech in with this analysis. It's really unfortunate because those out there who understand so little of what is actually going on will believe what these "analysts" tell you.

Did not cared to read your other comments, as I replied to this one. Also we are talking about the article not just its title.

I read the Bitcoin mentions as examples, but not conflations of the overall issues with blockchains.

Except that is only applicable for (proof of work POW) consensus and does not apply to proof of stake (POS) and delegated proof of stack (DPOS) which several of the top blockchain projects are currently using (even Ethereum is moving to POS)

The fact that while what you just said, in attempting to "clarify" the issue, might make sense to a technical practitioner -- but is sheer gobbledygook to a lay person -- lies at the heart of the disconnect between the Cult of the Blockchain, and the real human beings (and their needs) it purports to serve.

It's unfortunate this is coming from Wired.

It's written by one of the most respected analysts in the industry.

Except for that fact that he proceeds to use Bitcoin as the sole example of all the inherent problems of "Blockchain Technology" while providing absolutely no information about all the ways that Blockchain Technology has improved beyond what Bitcoin is doing. Bitcoin != Blockchain (in totality)

He may be a respected analyst, but he is providing a completely biased and uninformed view of Blockchain technology as it currently exists. That is a bad analyst in my opinion.

He provides "supply-chain security systems" as another example.

> except that is only applicable for (proof of work POW) consensus and does not apply to proof of stake (POS) and delegated proof of stack (DPOS) which several of the top blockchain projects are currently using (even Ethereum is moving to POS).

For POS, you have to trust the rich people and you have to trust that the disincentives to cheating actually work the way they’re supposed to. Neither of these have very compelling arguments right now. The fact that Etherium thinks POS is ready is utterly unconvincing — Ethereum also thought that Solidity and its VM design was ready, and that has withstood the test of time very well.

That is why I'm more of a fan of DPOS and (EOS) where I can take part in a voting mechanism to establish a set of trust worthy nodes who will validate the network.

For (m)ETH, proof of stake has been "just around the corner" for years.

I'm not saying that Blockchain technology doesn't have it's fair share of issues, but this article completely disregards any of the progress and real benefits that it offers outside of what we all know are the issues with Bitcoin.

Which blockchain(s) are currently successfully using POS or DPOS?

EOS WAX TRON Lisk Cardano Bitshares Steemit ARK Tezos Oxycoin DASH NEO etc..

Well there may be inaccuracies in the article, there are open questions and criticisms to blockchain that the echo chamber deflects rather than engages with.