Then people saw bitcoin made money so thought if you stick blockchain on something else maybe some of the money dust will rub off. Less good.
Once the next major depression comes in, a form of cryptocurrencies will gain traction again. People are fed up with big banks and centralized power.
If you got a few hours of free time you should really check out this project out.[4]
Disclaimer I am a cardano(ada) holder and I actively take part in this project as a pool operator.
[1]https://iohk.io/en/research/library/ [2]https://twitter.com/BetterStake/status/1296217244217868289 [3]https://twitter.com/search?q=cardano%20Raspberry&src=typed_q... [4]https://github.com/input-output-hk
You also only get privacy with transactions between two z-addresses, and those require a fair amount of resources to generate (I think HW wallets can't sign those transactions due to computational limitations). Most zcash transactions are between t-addresses which don't have any benefits over BTC (they're public).
https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/questions/49115/whats-the-...
As far as cardano, I'm skeptical of proof-of-stake compared to proof-of-work (though I might just not understand it fully). Proof-of-work seems like the main BTC innovation against abuse and a lot of the coins that use stake (stellar lumens, tezos) seem like they drop the defining characteristic of BTC decentralization in order to get faster transactions. Without proof of work you don't really get true decentralized protection from the system itself, you have to put trust somewhere. At least the tezos putting coins at risk approach is interesting. The cardano website also really sets off my bullshit alarms: https://cardano.org/
FWIW this is rapidly improving. The main thing we need to implement Zcash-style private payments is a Merkle proof in a zk-SNARK, so that we can prove ownership of an account in the Merkle tree without revealing the account. So the proving cost depends heavily on our choice of hash function.
Since most SNARKs operate over large finite fields, traditional bit-oriented hashes are a poor fit, but the designers originally went with SHA-256 anyway to be on the safe side. More recent versions of the Zcash circuit use Pedersen hashes, which are much cheaper and still provably collision-resistant (assuming discrete log hardness).
Future versions will probably use more specialized hashes designed to minimize field operations, like Rescue [1]. There's also the idea of using an embedded GKR protocol to verify gMIMC hashes with a very low incremental cost [2], although it might be overkill for Zcash-style circuits.
I saw in your profile you work on Mir, are you also involved in Zcash?
>>photos of Hoskinson with his mouth open taking selfies in various parts of the world
Honestly don't really know how to answer this. For someone who isn't interested in cardano you seem spend a lot of time stalking a blockchain ceo ;)
>> disclaimer: I hold none of either
congratulations!
Stablecoins: I remember plenty of commenters being quite certain that volatility made cryptocurrency unusable. And yet a short time later we have successful decentralized stable coins.
DeFi: Just in the past months Uniswap has rivaled centralized exchange volume as a decentralized exchange. It's permissionless composability appears to be spinning off an interesting group of experimental financial instruments.
These are a couple huge concrete examples of successes that make the ~show me something real~ argument difficult for me to accept. Nobody has built skyscrapers yet, but skyscrapers aren't built in a day. We have some pretty solid architecture going up it seems.
And if you've been following the space long enough most of this article is tedious and inconsequential:
1) "For instance, hundreds of links to child pornography and revenge porn were placed in the bitcoin blockchain by malicious users."
This is a tired argument from 2013 which nobody cares about: https://www.wired.com/story/why-porn-on-the-blockchain-wont-...
2) "Also, in a blockchain you aren’t anonymous, but “pseudonymous”: your identity is linked to a number, and if someone can link your name to that number, you’re screwed. Everything you got up to on that blockchain is visible to everyone."
Blockchains have many different properties. Some have more stringent privacy measures than others. Many HN readers are likely familiar with privacy coins employing things like zero-knowledge proofs or ring signatures. Not to mention the burgeoning research into the implementations of homomorphic encryption. How about Harvard putting your genome on the blockchain in such a way where you retain full control over it's rights? Doesn't sound completely useless to me: https://nebula.org/whole-genome-sequencing/
3) "The fact that no one is in charge and nothing can be modified also means that mistakes cannot be corrected. A bank can reverse a payment request. This is impossible for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. So anything that has been stolen will stay stolen."
First of all huge amounts of digital theft occurs today that goes unreversed. Also infrastructure reducing errors in cryptocurrency is being improved all the time. Transaction finality has cons but also pros and can be modified. And one can also imagine insurance for these types of losses becoming commonplace.
4) "And then there’s the environmental problem."
This is probably the most legitimate concern so far. All I can say is I hope we get serious about investing in clean energy production as a country/globe. Many things use energy, including cryptocurrency, and that isn't stopping anytime soon whether we like it or not.
5) His complaint that a specific project is not using the blockchain correctly and individuals couldn't explain the blockchain well isn't very convincing.
Of course lots of experimentation will fail. Pets.com didn't make the internet wrong. And even the experts have trouble describing possibilities that don't exist yet. If that isn't reminiscent of the early days of the internet then I don't know what is. If you've seen Bill Gates get mocked by Letterman while trying to describe the early internet then you understand this difficulty.
It's worth remembering that this area is still incredibly young. If you can't at least see the potential then maybe you aren't looking in the right places. Like here: https://a16z.com/2018/02/10/crypto-readings-resources/
People are claiming to be excited about DeFi because everyone loves unregulated derivatives and lending at insane APYs, but I think the real reason this has taken off is because the UX makes the future feel so real and achievable.
I'm just scratching at the surface now, but it's clear we've come a long way since bitcoin. I won't be shocked if it turns out bitcoin becomes seen as worthless old technology, but blockchains will never go away.
There's an experimental browser that provides this functionality for all kinds of websites, not just financial ones. You set up an account once when you install the browser, and then you can use it for one-click logins.
It's made by Alphabet Inc, but I can't seem to remember what it's called. Vanadium? Manganese? Ultron? Something like that anyway...
Seriously, go see what the process looks like. Just by not being full of A/B tested bullshit and free of regulation, you can get a glimpse of the future.
It feels powerful in a way that registering a Google account doesn't.
Well clearly someone cares
>2 How about Harvard putting your genome on the blockchain in such a way where you retain full control over it's rights?
I've never understood how the argument of putting private data on the blockchain is "good". To me this has seemed to be one of the worst ideas that is constantly pushed. It makes one strong assumption: the security of the network is and will always be unable to be decrypted. This seems naive. I am much less concerned with a centralized database where encryption of my data can be updated as new standards are adopted.
> Stablecoins
At the rare times I see people accept crypto as payment the options I see are: Bitcoin and Ether (and maybe bitcoin cash). I've never seen stable coin. Never seen stable. So not only is it not in practice but you're also illustrating my point about
>> You can talk all you want about solutions to some of the (minor) problems addressed here (ignoring the rest of the problems) but unless it is in use then the article's commentary still stands.
Great, you checked off one of the many boxes and created a coin that no one uses. Personally I don't count that as a success. (We can say the same thing about ZKP coins. I've never seen it accepted as payment anywhere) You need to check off ALL the (major) boxes in a single coin.
> 3
Is your comment seriously that "stealing happens, so it doesn't matter if we make it easier?" Seriously? Many people I know, including myself have had CC info stolen (often not our fault, other sites get hacked and dumped). Getting that fixed is pretty simple with a centralized source. I couldn't imagine having a significant chunk of my savings in an account that could be removed and not returned. The FDIC guarantees I'm safe with at least $250k and I'm pretty confident I'm practically safer than that. I get a lot of safety, stability, security, and privacy with fiat currencies. None of those are perfect, but cryptocurrencies need to check all the boxes here (plus fast transactions) to replace it. Better in a single aspect but worse in others does not warrant replacement and that's why we see it.
> 4
Please stop with the lemmings arguments. You also have to consider the utility of the electricity use. Cryptocurrencies aren't providing much utility. They aren't saving lives. The AC in your house has more utility.
> 6 (not a typo)
You ignored one of the most important arguments. Time. That has been a killer feature of cryptocurrencies since the beginning and people have been shouting that it will be solved with POS, POB, whatever. It is still non-viable unless the transaction times are brought down to at least a few seconds.
> It's worth remembering that this area is still incredibly young.
It is, but it is also very much hyped. Many technologies get hyped when young and go bust. In fact, this is more common than the other way around. So read my comment as asking for compelling reasons to think blockchain isn't one of them. Your argument has just been assuming I don't know about all the things you listed. Sorry to break it to you, but I already did. I feel confident many other HN users did as well.
But if the code is already written, meets the project requirements and is easy to deploy, why not?
I agree that if they're private they're equivalent to a customized database system, private blockchains aren't interesting but it doesn't make them useless, it's simply another way to solve problems that could already be solved before.
Also I don't think there is any significant energy consumed. There is no mining or anything like that. You have to pay for extra network traffic and more disks, simply because you're going to have more copies of data, most likely, but it's not so large amount of energy.
Second would be more profitable for the owners of that db, so there is a motivation to do it in that way. In many of the countries outside of US/EU it's a popular practice.
Would it, though? Google tells me that India has a population of around 1.4 billion people. Let's assume each person has one phone number, and each phone number requires one kilobyte of number-mobility-related data. Then the database would need to store 1.4 terabytes of information.
1.4 terabytes doesn't seem like an impossible amount of data to store. That fits on a consumer hard drive! Dell will sell you a single server with that much memory! Request volume doesn't seem like a huge issue either, since porting a phone number is something people do extremely rarely.
Or for that matter, recording of call details for billing between operators?
In a traditional database setup, the "transactional method to update it" would be sending a request to a central server to update the database. The central server can be run by whatever regulatory body or industry association is responsible for number portability -- ideally, this would be the group with legal authority to overrule whatever the computer system says anyway. It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
You could imagine doing it with a blockchain instead, but you could also imagine doing it using a Yahoo Groups email list -- that doesn't make it a necessary or good solution.
> It wouldn't need to handle a large number of transactions per second because people don't change phone providers very often.
That makes it fit blockchain quite well, actually.
I mean, I can imagine government wants this, so if such ideas comes from government you're going to have such regulatory body. But otherwise, if it comes from operators itself, they don't want to introduce such entity, and they don't want to award one of them as an ultimate boss to rule all of the numbers. Blockchain, at least, gives them a chance to continue to be equal.
But as this article articulates so well, that’s a red herring. Like, you can come up with all sorts of wild scenarios where central authority can be bad. But ultimately, these are scenarios you’re unlikely to encounter in the real world, and if you do, there are much simpler solutions.
Blockchain technology always reminded me of that XKCD about cryptographer expectations vs. reality (https://xkcd.com/538/): it’s solving a problem that only really exists in fantasy for 99% of the population.
Ther database will hold only entries signed by telco companies. Some rules will apply on what happens when a number changes.
Everyone gets access to the raw database, and to query the database.
In case of mismatches there will be an agreed arbitration process, with agreed upon fines to the party no being responsible. This or some other contract.
This sort of solves the problem.
The key win in the blockchain - is the decentralization. But we know, in the real world how to arrange cooperation using centralization. it works. It's done every day. So this case is mostly useful when you want to avoid regulation.
Another win of the blockchain - a lot of work has been done verifying that it is secure. It probably is the mose secure system for those sort of problems. And that's a good reason to use it in many places.
Let's say you get a computer virus that steals your banking credentials and transfers your money to someone else's account. In the traditional banking system, it's often possible to reset passwords and reverse transactions, especially if you catch the bad behavior quickly. With Bitcoin, your money is gone forever and it is mathematically impossible for you to ever get it back.
But in the example above that could still be easily fixed, you'd just need the companies involved to agree to reverse the mistake, as they are the miners of the chain.
So a database?
> AFAIK it is live and actively used.
Most things people seem to think are running on blockchain tech turn out not to be, so I'd be interested in any evidence here. Nonetheless.
> operating a database for that scale would be very complicated
They're already operating a database, so at most this is an argument that a traditional database tech wouldn't work, except...
...this is only a few billion rows, at most, right? With minimal data? It would totally, totally work. We're at a scale where a copy of "MySQL for dummies" is going to explain everything you need to know here. A moderately large number of people in this thread probably work for companies that have traditional databases that work at a larger scale or with higher demands than this.
But if you consider it more like an easy to cluster database with free, tamper-proof backups, it makes a lot more sense.
There is no problem with performance until schema changes are made, requiring a careful migration strategy plan (this is why DBAs get the big bucks.)
Source: DBA.
There's a few such systems in production - in practice, they tend to use a private Ethereum or Hyperledger as a back-end data store, and 100% of the use case for using a blockchain for your private back-end data store is being able to say "blockchain!" in the press release.
With this particular case, it maybe be solution to fight corruption (just a guess). Centralized trusted control of all phone number of a country is a huge power and a magnet for different types of corruption. So maybe the difference is that in your country the magnitude of corruption is lower than in India, or easier to handle because of size.
I don't know about corruption levels in India. I am under the impression that the level of corruption in my country is rather tiny, so this could very well be the explanation.