You have it backwards. "We don't know if a government who has the power to make our lives very difficult will have a problem with this, so we should be prudent and steer clear until that's settled."
I don’t see how your insult adds any value to the conversation. I can equally argue about you narrow-mindedness while bluntly stating the opposite argument.
Personal attacks break the site guidelines. So does using HN for ideological battle. The combo of the two is particularly ban-worthy. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and please don't post like this again, regardless of which ideology you favor or how wrong the other one is.
Agreed. I keep seeing people say bitcoin “needs” regulation and to me the notion of Washington having any say over bitcoin sounds absurd. Sadly I think we may one day find that a majority may think it makes sense, and I worry for the consequences.
Here are some points to consider as to whether blockchain is appropriate for your application:
Data on blockchains is by default, unencrypted, especially data that needs to be validated by the nodes.
Blockchains do not have inherent security against read access. You can control read access to some degree by encrypting certain elements on your blockchain but this can be compromised.
Not all information on the blockchain is true; data still needs to be checked and uploaded correctly and as such is open to human error.
No amount of time guarantees something will stay in the ledger. It is also difficult to remove data if required by law.
It’s not secure because it depends on the assumption that the blockchain community has more compute than the rest of the world.
It’s absurdly expensive to mine blocks to store data indefinitely.
Lack of government regulations for blockchain could impede growth.
If you don't have mining, or a similar way to decide between various possible forks, what you have is a cryptographically secured append-only ledger (such as what the git data-format resembles).
That's not a blockchain and that idea has existed for decades already.
I think that idea is now being called a "blockchain" since in reality the trustless/proof-of-work nature of a true blockchain is largely wasted for specific companies.
It's not a redefinition, it's a definition that has been around since the 1990's [0], the only requirement for a blockchain is A) directed linked list (block points to previous block) and B) cryptographic security (use hashes as block index)
Bitcoin is merely the first application to use Blockchain in a decentralized proof-of-work manner.
It is a blockchain is you don't merge since you have a commit pointing at a previous commit, (block points to block), merges point to two parents but Ethereum has that almost with uncle blocks.
The commit log of a repo is almost certainly a blockchain, which is why I mentioned "to some extend"
Think of a blockchain as only one strand (say, the leftmost strand, from a leaf all the way to the root) of a Merkle tree. Think of a git repository as the whole tree. So no, they are not equivalent.
If they were there would never be a way to have more than one branch depend on a previous one.
As mentioned, the git commit log, not the entire repo, which is more organized like a merkel tree, though that is only really the storage.
The commit log is a strict DAG, if you don't have any merges, it is a strict blockchain, otherwise it gets fuzzy but is close enough.
I never said it's equivalent but that is what a blockchain is; "A blockchain [...] is a continuously growing list of records [...] which are linked and secured using cryptography."[0]
This doesn't mention "Can't be a merkle tree" for one, but also doesn't mention "can't consist of branches which merge again" or "requires proof of work" or "must use signatures" (cryptography refers to the hashes normally but can refer to anything else too)
Git also acts like a blockchain, if you change the past (edit a past commit) you need to update all following commits for the new hash and their children hashes and anyone who has the repository must do a force pull, similarly to how Bitcoin rejects fork chains with less proof-of-work.
It might be worth mentioning that Bitcoin also uses MerkleTrees for storage as they are very good for quickly comparing sets.
A blockchain does not necessarily process financial transactions at all and I don't see why it must be a requirement.
"if you don't have any merges" -> so, not a blockchain.
What you are saying is that you can use git in such a way that you get something resembling a blockchain but - again, and it is getting tiresome - that does no imply equivalence between git and the blockchain.
As I mentioned, even with merges it still has the properties of a blockchain, just not the ones traditionally used by cryptocurrencies.
You still have blocks (commits) pointing to other blocks (commits). Some blocks just points to multiple other blocks (think the uncle system in ethereum, which is just exactly that; temporary forks that are still included into the chain)
There is two definitions in play here for the word blockchain.
In the version you mean, how does the blockchain (git, or any other blockchain by your definition) respond when two valid blocks are canidates to be added to the end of the chain?
Is only one block the winner? How is this property maintained as the blockchain grows?
These are the questions and issues the blockchain others in this thread mean can deal with, while, for example, these questions don't exactly make sense for, for example, git.
Yes, only one block is the winner. It is whatever the maintainer of the git repository chooses as HEAD. This property is maintained by any number of out-of-band mechanisms such as Github pull requests and company-wide mandates never to "git push --force".
Seriously though, it just seems like a question of semantics. Is a blockchain just a specific sort of Merkle tree -- thus making Bitcoin a blockchain plus a distributed consensus protocol? Or does calling something a blockchain necessarily imply some consensus protocol already.
You can search right now and find programming 'blockchain tutorials', targeting the cryptocurrency community, that go on to describe only linked blocks chained together via some embedded hash of a subset of the previous blocks (meta)data. This is what others in various comments are calling a cryptograpically secured blockchain.
Other tutorials will set up a mempool (pending transactions) or get peers communicating. I've never seen peer discovery or any discussion on chain value (ie height vs accumulated difficulty) for chain selection.
The common consensus for the term "blockchain" is not based on the 1991 paper, but on Bitcoin's use of similar technology to make a distributed ledger. The term itself is relatively recent, and was not used until well after Satoshi's paper. For example, Harvard Business Review describes it this way:
"At its most basic, blockchain is a vast, global distributed ledger or database running on millions of devices and open to anyone" [1]
That incorporates at least two concepts that are typically associated with the term "blockchain" that go beyond the basic cryptographic data structure: they are distributed, and they are open. Lots of technologies use a similar data structure; git uses a similar data structure. But when a silicon valley startup comes to you and pitches you on their "hot new blockchain tech" they probably don't mean git.
>but on Bitcoin's use of similar technology to make a distributed ledger.
That doesn't really change a thing. Bitcoin merely uses a blockchain to ensure consensus, if all nodes are trusted then you don't need proof of work and you can switch to simply linking the list (see Git or Ethereum Testnets), and the contents of the blockchain are mostly irrelevant too (you can put anything on there, transactions are merely one type of thing you put in there)
At it's most basic, a blockchain is just a directed graph of nodes where a cryptographic method links two nodes together in a child-parent relationship. Everything else is just added fluff for the specific usecase.
I think a lot of people would disagree with you. There are obviously many methods besides proof-of-work to achieve consensus, but a blockchain cannot properly be called a "blockchain" unless there is some consensus protocol. Not every DAG of digital hashes is a blockchain.
Under your definition, every CBC mode stream cipher could be called a blockchain, which just makes the term meaningless. It was coined for a specific purpose: to describe how Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies operate at a technical level, especially how they guarantee integrity and prevent double-spending.
In git the consensus protocol is "whatever the maintainer thinks is the correct HEAD" or "what the maintainers can agree on to be 'master'". There are many ways you can achieve consensus.
The same as it'd cost to store any other data -- roughly 380 satoshis (~6.4 cents) per byte, plus various overheads to make it into a a valid transaction.
There is a huge difference between the cryptocurrency blockchain and the enterprise-y blockchain. They are not the same thing which kinda confuses the whole message.
It's worth noting that it is likely many private blockchains will still use and interact with public blockchains, such as to embed the hashes of private blockchain blocks, to ensure integrity of a chain with undoubtably fewer, and therefor more compromisable, nodes.
From the article, about the supposed expert who is skeptical:
> For all that she has learned, Radia is first to confess that she is by no means an expert in the technology — admitting that she cannot distinguish exactly what makes something blockchain technology
The article is right about one thing though - a lot of people are talking blockchains up without having any idea about what they are or how they work.
Conversely, a lot of people, like Radia in the article, are talking blockchains down, without understanding them.
People who "understand blockchains" don't agree on what exactly distinguishes something as blockchain technology, and people (and companies) are claiming all kinds of things as using "blockchain technology".
Yeah sure but you need to understand asymmetric cryptographic to know how secure this data structure is, and how it can prevent attacks from private-key holders and non-private-key holders that claim to be holders.
No, “block chain” itself just refers to the hash-chain ordering of transactions. Using asymmetric crypto to verify spend conditions is sorta orthogonal to that.
blockchain without cryptography is like writing a data structure without any motivation for its existence. i.e. why hashtables were created in the first place? To have indexing (faster access than simple array/lists). What would be the point of a blockchain without cryptography? You cannot call that blockchain IMO (otherwise, any chain of blocks would be a blockchain, for example: a file is a blockchain, right?).
blockchain without cryptography is like writing a data structure without any motivation for its existence
Note that you said asymmetric cryptography and your parent said that asymmetric cryptography is not the basis of the block chain. And they would be right, at its core, the blockchain consists of blocks of transactions in a Merkle tree. The Merkle tree typically uses a cryptographically strong hash, otherwise it would be possible to modify the Merkle tree without anyone noticing. But a hash is not asymmetric cryptography.
In many applications of the blockchain, asymmetric cryptography is used to sign transactions. But that is largely orthogonal to the blockchain as a data structure. The blockchain as a data structure has useful applications without transaction signing, etc.
What makes the discussion clouded is that some people define 'block chain' as transaction blocks in a Merkle tree, while others also consider distributed consensus, etc. to be part of the block chain.
I believe the comment you are responding is making a distinction between the public key cryptography used to authorize spending from a private wallet, and the act of including a cryptographic hash of the previous block in the current block creating a blockchain (which only requires a strong hash function, not asymmetric cryptography).
Blockchains as defined this way have existed long before there was a proof-of-work based consensus protocol to make Bitcoin a reality. In their more general form they are called "Merkel trees". Filesystems aren't generally structured this way but, for example, git repositories are Merkel trees.
Git is an example of a blockchain without much cryptography, as someone else explained here.
The only cryptography is the SHA1 hash that links commits together, otherwise all cryptography is optional.
And that's totally okay because such repositories are usually run by people who have the authority over it.
A blockchain is a special kind of linked graph that uses cryptography to link each node, otherwise, there are no additional requirements and there are plenty of reasons you might not want anything else.
It's obscure, honestly. But most cryptocurrency enthusiasts use the term to mean a blockchain (the data structure) together with a protocol for "consensus" (acceptance of a single instance of that data structure), commonly proof of work / "Nakamoto consensus".
Technically, it's just a linked list that uses hash pointers.
Nowadays, it appears to be used to refer to a distributed database that use blockchains or merkle trees (binary trees with hash pointers) and has a consensus algorithm.
> People who "understand blockchains" don't agree on what exactly distinguishes something as blockchain technology,
Does this assertion come from a person who understands, or doesn't understand blockchain? :)
Because if you don't understand it, I would take your assertion with a grain of salt. And if you think you understand it, but you make this assertion, it means you disagree with many people that understand it... which hints that maybe you don't understand it after all ;)
Hint: the author is suggesting almost nobody else who claims they understand it, actually does. Whether that includes the author is almost besides the point. Take a good look around at the price of Bitcoin right now and ask yourself: is this because a whole lot of people just read the white paper, or is it just hype from people who have no idea what they are talking about. Draw your own conclusion.
Ya know, Radia Perlman has decades of experience working on networking protocols, I'm willing to bet she understands blockchain as well as anybody. The statement "I cannot distinguish exactly what makes something blockchain technology" should probably translate as "currently the term 'blockchain' is thrown about so loosely its meaning is obscure."
I think it really pertains to using merkle trees. If you take a deep look into how bitcoin actually is implemented merkle trees are the base with which it is formed around.
This. 1000x. The beautiful thing is if you approach the conversation as one about a merkle tree built on a consensus algorithm, while avoiding the term 'blockchain', it's still possible to get folks excited about the tech.
A lot of people know a lot about block-chains - but they know absolutely nothing about currency, finance or economics. I would say these people are scarier than IT managers who don't quite grasp crypto yet - because companies are not actually using crypto for much these days.
Many-to-most "blockchain experts" are hazy on where, exactly, the line between blockchain and not-blockchain falls (or, at least, there's enough ambiguity that drawing a sharp line is difficult to impossible).
To use that uncertainty to call out someone who professes skepticism about the general concept, while explicitly confessing that same uncertainty, as a means of disqualifying her perspective is therefore literally a fallacy of irrelevance.
People need to take a crash course into the community before making accusations like this. Simply looking at the protocols of the largest blockchain shows that no one wants crazy, overbearing government regulation; we don't even know who created it. Also, it's very naive when they associate blockchain with data and monetary values when it could be used to track anything. If I had an iPad in the bathroom, when I use the toilet I can validate it by pressing a button and reward myself with a Number 2 Coin. If I wanted the blockchain to be more secure and trustworthy I could open the window and text the neighbors so they could validate that I am also in the bathroom.
If you have lost any bitcoins or wallet for BTC weather saved online or Not. I have worked for profiteers and binary investors, so If you need my services on recovering lost and missing bitcoins, you can contact via email address hackerdanielssmith@gmail.com good luck
Wow what is going on with that site. Really nasty scam ads redirecting me to a site trying to look like Facebook and rewriting browser history so I can’t back out.
This article actually makes a lot of good points about the issues we're seeing today around "fake news", and the general uncivilized discourse that dominates the internet. He wasn't entirely wrong, but maybe underestimated how pervasive the web would get before we took a step back and saw the warts.
We all remember the internet skeptics, but forget how equally wrong the people who were predicting that the internet would lead us to a global utopia by the year 2000. Extreme positions are usually wrong.
It's hard to take comparisons of an internet-based technology to the internet itself seriously. Blockchain more comparable to something like Push [1]. Mostly overhyped, some good ideas that will survive and re-emerge years later, and massive amounts of malinvestment in technologies that didn't ultimately pan out. [2]
Here[0] is a great article about what a blockchain is and isn't good for for. The tldr is that blockchains make tradeoffs that are bad for most things.
In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive
They are less scalable
They have worse user experiences
They have volatile and uncertain governance
And no, this isn’t just because they are new. This won’t fundamentally change with bigger blocks, lightning networks, sharding, forks, self-amending ledgers, or any other technical solutions.
That’s because there are structural trade-offs that result directly from the primary design goal of these services, beneath which all other goals must be subordinated in order for them to be relevant: decentralization.
They also don't require trusting a single third party processor... which is sort of the whole point. Blockchains are a tool to solve certain classes of problems, not every financial problem, or even most financial problems.
I didn't downvote, but it looks like hand wavy bullshit to me. If you're gonna dismiss fundamental blockchain tradeoffs as being minor temporary obstacles, I think the onus is on you to back it up - not the other way around.
maybe he forgot a /s :-) While I believe that the Lightning Network is awesome and hope that Ethereum manages to get Sharding right. We don't know yet. So there is room for failure and it may turn out as disastrous.
I did not down vote it, but I would assume that it is because the comment has no sustenance, just claiming they will be overcome offers no proof that they will be overcome. I could claim that they wont, and it would be just as valid of a statement. At the moment we don't know how they will be overcome. All proposals on the table either lead to possible centralization or still don't increase the transaction volume enough for blockchain tech to become a truly global currency that can handle all payment transactions happening in the world at any moment. While I agree it will most likely be overcome in time, I can offer no proof of that, so my opinion has very little value in the context of this conversation.
It’s ironic that the blog post is an earnest response to Jamie Dimon’s comments about cryptocurrencies. I always assumed Dimon himself was testing his ability to influence pricing of cryptos with those comments. It’s an old game played by Wall Street: talk a good play down in the press, buy on the downward pressure, and then make money on the correction. This happens during almost every AAPL earnings cycle, for example.
So, umm, what is blockchain really useful for? The basic thing blockchain helps with is: it provides a way to verify the order in which entries are made to a ledger.
Genuine question: What applications/problems it is useful for? Have you seen a good application yet (other than currencies)?
Would love to learn about the positives, from this community.
What are semaphores useful for? That’s the question you are asking really. Bitcoin is a global, non-trusted semaphore/mutex lock system.
A “smart contract” is basically an ordinary payment contract where execution steps are gated by separate semaphore controlled by sunsets of the participant set.
What can you do with that? It’s hard to answer without being so general as to be useless, or without getting too specific such that we lose the big picture.
“Block chain” is about replacing courts and arbitration with a computer network, and replacing contract lawyers with programmers. What makes this possible is the fair, untrusted, equal access semaphore a bitcoin spend provides.
They can guarantee that some data that indicates it was recorded yesterday was in fact recorded yesterday and not changed at any point since yesterday.
There's literally nothing a blockchain can do that a trusted central database couldn't do. So you only need a blockchain if you can't trust a central database. As a result, the answer to the question you've posed is always going to be a political one, not a technical one. ("It lets banks that don't trust each other keep a shared database of transactions." "It lets citizens who don't trust their various governments exchange currency." "It lets shipping companies that don't trust each other digitize their manifests." "It lets scientists prove their papers were published on a certain date.")
Cool, yes, one use case: you can stick document hashes in to the block chain to prove document state at some point in time. This no doubt has legal uses, and perhaps scientests too although I think less so.
Re your shipping manifest example - can you expand on this - how does this work?
Once the manifest has been added to the blockchain, it can no longer be altered or removed. This means that the receiver can publicly acknowledge having received the goods it paid for, and won't be able to retract that acknowledgement.
The main point is that, unlike a situation where you would be using a centralized database, there is no need to have a central trusted party to operate the database - the source of trust is distributed among the mining power of all nodes in the network.
Basically, when I load up your ship, I document all the stuff I am loading on to the ship in a Bill of Lading. You agree that all of that stuff is present and you're now responsible for it. At the other end of the shipping route you present the Bill of Lading and show that all the goods are present and intact.
If this document is digital, then I might get screwed if you lose stuff or stuff gets damaged and you remove it from the Bill of Lading and say you never saw the goods. Or you might get screwed if I add new stuff to the Bill of Lading after you load the goods and claim you didn't deliver it. So one way to solve this is to put the document and both of our signatures in a blockchain, and now we all agree that this is what we saw on that date.
At it's core, a blockchain is just a really efficient way of guaranteeing the integrity of any given ledger.
I am working on a giftcard purchasing and issuing system at the moment, for example.
I could use a chain of SHA256 hashes of each row hashed upon each previous row of data's SHA256 hash in our MySQL db to make sure that none of my employees were giving themselves an early Christmas bonus if you know what I mean.
Nobody could change any of the giftcard values without being noticed.
Blockchain technology is not only useful for cryptocurrencies.
It may be too late for a lot of people. My mom called me today, she's a retired teacher in her early 70s, and the guy installing her new gutters in Mount Vernon, WA (USA)* just put a few grand towards Bitcoin and now my mom is thinking of making a significant financial investment in the same. She has not-a-single-clue what Bitcoin is, does, or could do. She only knows that it is all over the news and everyone, including the handyman installing her gutters, is throwing money at cryptocurrencies (though few call any by that name). Everyone is hoping to get rich quick.
* Not quite the middle of nowhere, but certainly not a tech hub
it's already posing a significant threat in smaller economies like South Korea. a lot of people (even here on hacker news) don't seem to understand the consequences of bitcoin & cryptocurrency. i am very concerned.
a lot of bitcoin followers seem to think that decentralization saves us from arbitrary value adjustments. decentralization completely exposes currency to volatility and does not self-stabilize nicely regardless how many people use it, because supply is broken. this false idea that decentralization is good for currency shows lack of understanding in how currency works. a central authority is required to protect the value of currency. that is why central bank prints money and does QE. it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies. without central authority, it cannot function as currency.
I don't know a book to recommend. basic scheme is explained in any money & banking textbook. if you know what a bank run is, why it occurs and how it is being prevented then you will see why bitcoin's decentralization makes no sense. only part that is probably not on textbook is this blind faith that volume guarantees stability. it does not.
I know what a bank run is, why it occurs and how it is being prevented (probably better than your average bear) and I see no correlation between that and bitcoin.
The only problem I see, if you could even call it that, is that bitcoin "banks" (exchanges?) are restricted to being 100% warehousing operations since there is nobody to bail them out if (when?) they decide they can make more profit earning interest by loaning out the funds they are contractually obligated to hold.
If you want to avoid a run on your bitcoin exchange then simply don't engage in fractional reserve banking...or, I suppose, don't lose all your holdings to hackers.
i am saying that when bitcoin value takes a hit by some global event, and people panic to sell, there is nothing that will stop the value from gyrating to zero. what are you talking about? what does charging interest or reserve have anything to do with this? you make no sense.
You know that's totally, completely different from a bank run, right?
Central banks have very little influence on the value of their currency once people lose faith in it, people will buy anything instead of holding on to their (usually rapidly devaluing) currency.
One thing every holder of bitcoin knows is it will never suffer through hyperinflation, ever.
central bank scheme is not perfect. however central bank has proven to be very effective at providing stability to currency. bitcoin's scheme is vastly inferior. protection from hyperinflation is not a great benefit compared to unstable currency value bitcoin is designed to suffer. also hyperinflation doesn't occur unless the government is essentially defunct. I'm sure people would just switch to some other reputable currency before it happens.
There's at least one thing to stop them: fundamentals and speculation. People buy back in (in part) because Bitcoin is designed to strengthen itself (not price, I'm mainly referring to incentives to mine and to steward). (And it's not equivalent to the shitcoins that it spawned so the assumption it it's not special is invalid.) That makes Bitcoin a completely different asset to model than a fiat currency. If there's one difference, there are probably more. And there certainly are.
My two cents is Banking and Financial Institutions Law in a Nutshell by William Lovett. He was my law professor on this subject, and had a knack for teaching the fundamental forces at play.
... a central authority is required to protect the value of currency. ...
I don't really see the need for a central authority and you'd have to make a really good case to convince me. I believe most currencies originated in a decentralised way. I think the central authorities have failed in a big way during the euro-crisis and I welcome a future where the value of money cannot be manipulated by some central authority in order to push some economic and politic agendas. It's clear to me that decentralised currencies provide many needs that cannot be met by centralised currencies.
i'm not sure what you mean by euro crisis but if you are asking why euro failed, it shows exactly why bitcoin will not work. euro is an attempt to use single currency for different economies. euro failed because it ignores simple fact that different economies need different currency value to stabilize their economy. reason why portugal ireland greece spain are suffering worse than it should be is because those countries lost their power to control currency to european bank.
> reason why portugal ireland greece spain are suffering worse than it should be is because those countries lost their power to control currency to european bank.
So you're saying there is no way to have a stable economy without control over your currency?
Many countries have big internal variations within areas, just as much as between other countries - by your logic why is it not just as necessary to have separate currencies for California, Southern Italy etc? London, New York, Shanghai, Paris, Singapore would be better served by a common currency than their national ones according to this line of logic, and given that they make up significant proportions of the economy for their respective nations, you'd think that enforcing use of the local currency is hugely damaging for their economies.
"I don't really see the need for a central authority and you'd have to make a really good case to convince me."
A central bank can ultimately control the value of a currency by either grabbing assets on the free market and emitting currency - or the inverse - grabbing currency and selling off the underlying asset.
This is a very powerful way to control volatility.
Gold has fairly strict supply and it moves around a lot.
If the US Fed really, really wanted to control the USD vis-a-vis some other currency, they could do that.
"I believe most currencies originated in a decentralised way"
Ah? No, definitely not. Except for gold ... currencies have issuers, rules, a central bank of sorts. Like the King. Or whatever.
> don't seem to understand the consequences of bitcoin & cryptocurrency
Everyone keep saying that but these words are empty. What are consequences of regular stock market? And what difference does it make for someone who bought bitcoin for $15,000 and sold for $50,000 ?
I fail to understand how frightening people helps? Its been acknowledged so many times yes its a bubble. Yes, a major correction is in works, but shorting or selling now is "catching falling knives" (term I learnt trading stocks in 80s). But when the bubble burst EVENTUALLY, you won't be able to buy bitcoin for 1 cent, as it will never go back to basics again. We need deep correction so that we can test major mining holders how much they withstand so 80% correction would be healthy for Bitcoin, if we want to (should!) look at it at any other trading stock.
The truth is - unless something else comes along, there is almost infinite number of dollars waiting to be convert to bitcoins. these traders will be passing a baton to each other for a very long time to come.
> ...a central authority is required to protect the value of currency. that is why central bank prints money and does QE.
So, what you're saying is they protect the value of a currency by devaluing it?
> it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies. without central authority, it cannot function as currency.
No, it's a conspiracy to tax the population without actually taxing them through devaluing the currency (aka inflation). Enriching some cronies is merely a side effect that keeps the bankers in line (and, more importantly, in the cartel) since they profit handsomely through fractional reserve banking and debt monetization -- neither of which is possible "without central authority".
> So, what you're saying is they protect the value of a currency by devaluing it?
A central banks job is to stabilize the currency and the relevant economy. Controlling liquidity and interest rates are two tools to affect this change. Side effects of which are controlling the rate of inflation.
Stability is the key for a currency at global level.
But don't take my word for it:
"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."
Sure, I know what they claim to do. My assertion is they in fact do something entirely different while using propaganda to tell you what they want you to think they do.
everyone gets taxed in the scheme, even the board of governors at the fed, so whats your point? who benefits? government tax income increases? so what? does fed get a pay raise everytime they do this? you are really over your head.
Well, you see, people have this aversion to taxes and if they knew exactly how much they are paying they might start to get a little upset. So governments came up with this scheme to hide how much they tax them so they don't upset the people.
Not even to mention the negative effects inflationary policies have on the factors of production but, as you're some kind of expert, I obviously don't have to.
I really should know better than to try to discuss economic issues with someone who can't even manage to use a shift key but, as the say, "someone is wrong on the internet."
Are you specifically including Bitcoin's fixed coin emission cap in your reasoning? It is known to be problematic. One of the things it apparently prevents is a flexible blocksize because that apparently requires a tail emission instead of fixed cap. Tail emission yields an inflationary coin (see Monero's economics) whereas the fixed cap of Bitcoin causes it to be continuously and strongly deflationary. I'm not an expert in QE but you're comparing a centrally governed fiat system to a system which places governance in the hands of strong social/financial incentives. Such incentives eventually lead to asking the most qualified person for guidance (which becomes governance). I'll be very interested to read your reply in case this modifies your thinking at all. Thanks
I think the real danger you're talking about is that people are conflating the value (or usefulness) of bitcoin _as a technology_ vs the value of _bitcoins_.
It's an awesome technology for what it does, and it will probably be more _useful_ than most people realize right now (if we ignore other cryptocurrencies on the market). But that doesn't mean that bitcoins themselves are going to be worth more.
Isn't it silly to ask a question without knowing in detail the meanings of the terms in it? How would you confirm the veracity of the answer? When you really understand the question you will see its answer. And if that's too cryptic for ya, I doubt this is the venue for a lecture on why bitcoin was invented and the meaning of value. :)
Bitcoin won't have any value beyond speculation until it loses its speculative value. That's what he's alluding to. Bitcoin is useless as a currency until it reaches stability.
Proof? I use it as a currency all the time. I also use Monero (which btw is specifically designed to be a real currency) yet its price keeps rising. QED. And by the way, these are not dark web purchases. Not that it matters at all.
How do I use it as a currency? Easy. Actually use it. If you worry about price going down, just convert it to USD when you receive it. Think of it as a settlement layer. Because... it is. There. Now you get to try to tell me why what I said is false.
Surely you're not saying that Bitcoin cant be a currency because it hasnt taken over the world yet, therefore it still has relevant volatility.
By the way, exactly 0 of the 5 properties of a currency are "no volatility".
And this is part is funny. Would you care to quantify the bounds of volatility at which a security tranforms into a currency?
Does market manipulation NOT happen in foreign currency exchange?
Do you consider USD Tether a currency?
/me gets lawnchair out
Guess this means no one is able to refute my price vs value claim either.
The core innovation in the original paper by Satoshi Nakamoto is Proof of Work: A system where people secure the scarcity of a decentralized digital quantity by spending compute power in order to be rewarded units of the same digital quantity.
Proof of Work is ultimately a set of well-balanced design decisions employing well-known technology. Maybe that's why people have a hard time seeing the novelty in it: they just see a bag of individual technologies and miss the delicacy of the design.
I may be misinformed, but I see proof of work schemes as something that will inevitably lead to a tremendous waste of energy -- the last thing we should do if we still want to inhabit this planet in a few decades. If a centralized authority is needed to reduce this waste, then so be it.
It's true. Alternatives like Proof of Stake, Delegated Proof of Stake, Proof of Importance, etc., try to fix the energy waste problem. They follow similar reasoning to Proof of Work, using financial incentives to keep miners honest. They don't require centralized authorities. However it's early days for Proof of Stake, we'll see how it develops.
while bitcoin makes all the news and contributes to the gold rush insanity of averages Joes, Ethereum is seating quite, but it can make even bigger news, like the most recent one about a Swiss bank to build the EU regulation platform based on the Etherium smart contract implementation. I am thinking about contributing all my crypto money to ETH.
While most articles infer they are building these things on top of the public Ethereum blockchain it is more likely they are basing it on top of R3CEV[0].
Either sloppy reporting or part of a grander pump-and-dump scheme, you decide...
Yeah, recently sloppy reporting contributed to the insane raise of IOTA cryptocurrency but after the clarification it flew down to earth. It totally looked like pump-and-dump! But Etherium is another story, I believe in its future.
Back when they were still planning things out I dropped some economic theory on them (over gas pricing IIRC) and they were basically like "nah, that would hurt our cabal". I wish I had a link because I'm not even exaggerating. Totally left a bad taste in my mouth.
Then I hear about hard forks and proof of stake and "welcome, my son, welcome to the machine..."
“Don’t say ‘Can we apply blockchain for this application?’ or ‘We have blockchain, what sort of things can we use it for’. Instead, start from the other end with the problem you’re trying to solve and consider the best ways to solve it,” said Radia.
I see only the fundamental design flaw in the decentralization. Copying a infinitely growing dataset to increasing amount of processing nodes is just worst kind of design error I can imagine in any decentralized system.
yes, bitcoin is single linked list that's not even sharded. design is very flawed. can't believe these bitcoin followers think it's holy grail of technology. bitcoin can't even handle the current volume well. it requires massive computing power, bandwith, storage at every node.
BTC is designed to evolve. If the problems you’ve described do turn out to be major issues then node software will be updated to address those concerns. While difficult, I’ll admit, it is not impossible to add sharding (for example) to the BTC Core network.
If BTC is truly subject to evolutionary forces, then there is no logical reason to think it isn't heading down a dead end branch. How can you guarantee adding to a flawed technology won't see that "value" unravel , especially if something fundamentally different come along that solves the problem set without carrying legacy baggage or leaving collateral damage that each "fork" by definition must incur?
Bitcoin is designed to grow at a bounded rate, at the cost of capacity and latency. Another choice would be to eliminate those limitations, at the cost of practical verifiability by all stakeholders. There's not an easy answer for how to achieve all these goals at once.
I have no sympathy for anyone who ends up screwed by "investing" in bitcoin or the like. There will always be a significant percentage of our flawed human race out to get something for nothing. So long as it's legal there can be no real progress. Making money out of money - be it bitcoin or any other currency - without contributing anything of real value is the root of all our economic problems.
For a general audience this article is not clarifying enough where the hype is and where it isn’t.
There is a clear distinction between public/permissionless blockchains (e.g. Bitcoin) and distributed ledgers (misnamed as private blockchains). The article is referring mainly to the later.
Bitcoin is a theoretical and practical computer science innovation even if the Bitcoin price goes down to $ 0. The innovation covers a search for decades for a secure P2P and [central] bankless protocol solving the multiple spending problem. This innovation uses game theory and security, and we expect that there will be new innovations around this concept. Check “Blockchain Research Resources” [1]
Regarding distributed ledgers the signal to noise ratio is very low (lot of hype). To clarify this we must understand that distributed ledgers existed long before the blockchain and are not really connected to Bitcoin and other public blockchains beyond reusing some part of those implementations but without the core innovation. These are examples of previous initiatives:
The Bitcoin paper is from 2008 while Nick Szabo’s smart contracts concept is from 1994 [2]
if we go back in time we can find the AMIX project in 1988 [3]
Another concept used in a distributed ledger is the idea of immutability of data recorded there. Ideas of log immutability can be traced back to a 1995 Spanish article titled “VCR y PEO, dos protocolos criptográficos simples” [4] and then reviewed in 1998 in English as “VCR and PEO revised” [5]. Bruce Schneier also published similar works in 1997 with Automatic Event-Stream Notorization Using Digital Signatures and in 1998 as “Cryptographic Support for Secure Logs on Untrusted Machines” [6]. Also look at "Logcrypt: Forward Security and Public Verification for Secure Audit Logs" [7].
161 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 258 ms ] thread> Lack of government regulations for blockchain could impede growth.
i.e. "We're from the government, and we're here to help make your blockchain more efficient and grow faster!"
Databases are unsecured by default -> databases are overhyped!
Only MongoDB and yes, it is all hype
Government regulation exists precisly for the purpose of making inter-personal relations more efficient.
Data on blockchains is by default, unencrypted, especially data that needs to be validated by the nodes. Blockchains do not have inherent security against read access. You can control read access to some degree by encrypting certain elements on your blockchain but this can be compromised. Not all information on the blockchain is true; data still needs to be checked and uploaded correctly and as such is open to human error. No amount of time guarantees something will stay in the ledger. It is also difficult to remove data if required by law. It’s not secure because it depends on the assumption that the blockchain community has more compute than the rest of the world. It’s absurdly expensive to mine blocks to store data indefinitely. Lack of government regulations for blockchain could impede growth.
Is this true of all block chains or specific to bitcoin?
That's not a blockchain and that idea has existed for decades already.
I think that idea is now being called a "blockchain" since in reality the trustless/proof-of-work nature of a true blockchain is largely wasted for specific companies.
That's definitely the definition some companies are operating under.. but really?
WALs and journals have existed for ages and both fit the definition of a directed list of blocks.
Hell, ext2 and FAT fit that definition (inodes forming a directed list of block-references).
I guess we all store our data on something that's technically a blockchain by your definition.
Bitcoin is merely the first application to use Blockchain in a decentralized proof-of-work manner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
A bitcoin blockchain is also a Merlke tree.
But a git repository is not a blockchain.
The commit log of a repo is almost certainly a blockchain, which is why I mentioned "to some extend"
Think of a blockchain as only one strand (say, the leftmost strand, from a leaf all the way to the root) of a Merkle tree. Think of a git repository as the whole tree. So no, they are not equivalent.
If they were there would never be a way to have more than one branch depend on a previous one.
The commit log is a strict DAG, if you don't have any merges, it is a strict blockchain, otherwise it gets fuzzy but is close enough.
I never said it's equivalent but that is what a blockchain is; "A blockchain [...] is a continuously growing list of records [...] which are linked and secured using cryptography."[0]
This doesn't mention "Can't be a merkle tree" for one, but also doesn't mention "can't consist of branches which merge again" or "requires proof of work" or "must use signatures" (cryptography refers to the hashes normally but can refer to anything else too)
Git also acts like a blockchain, if you change the past (edit a past commit) you need to update all following commits for the new hash and their children hashes and anyone who has the repository must do a force pull, similarly to how Bitcoin rejects fork chains with less proof-of-work.
It might be worth mentioning that Bitcoin also uses MerkleTrees for storage as they are very good for quickly comparing sets.
A blockchain does not necessarily process financial transactions at all and I don't see why it must be a requirement.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain
What you are saying is that you can use git in such a way that you get something resembling a blockchain but - again, and it is getting tiresome - that does no imply equivalence between git and the blockchain.
I really don't understand why you keep arguing.
You still have blocks (commits) pointing to other blocks (commits). Some blocks just points to multiple other blocks (think the uncle system in ethereum, which is just exactly that; temporary forks that are still included into the chain)
In the version you mean, how does the blockchain (git, or any other blockchain by your definition) respond when two valid blocks are canidates to be added to the end of the chain?
Is only one block the winner? How is this property maintained as the blockchain grows?
These are the questions and issues the blockchain others in this thread mean can deal with, while, for example, these questions don't exactly make sense for, for example, git.
Seriously though, it just seems like a question of semantics. Is a blockchain just a specific sort of Merkle tree -- thus making Bitcoin a blockchain plus a distributed consensus protocol? Or does calling something a blockchain necessarily imply some consensus protocol already.
It doesn't. But for all practical purposes at this point in time it might as well.
You can search right now and find programming 'blockchain tutorials', targeting the cryptocurrency community, that go on to describe only linked blocks chained together via some embedded hash of a subset of the previous blocks (meta)data. This is what others in various comments are calling a cryptograpically secured blockchain.
Other tutorials will set up a mempool (pending transactions) or get peers communicating. I've never seen peer discovery or any discussion on chain value (ie height vs accumulated difficulty) for chain selection.
We've always been able to decide how to add an element to the end of a (possibly cryptographically secure) chain of blocks.
What separates the two definitions of blockchain in this thread is exactly the distributed and decentralized choosing of the top block.
That's not a thing that has existed since the 90s nor is it a thing with so few requirements.
>The term "blockchain", as used these days, refers to the distributed system underlying cryptocurrencies.
That's how you prefer to use it but it doesn'T change how it's defined [1]
[0]: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00196791
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blockchain
"At its most basic, blockchain is a vast, global distributed ledger or database running on millions of devices and open to anyone" [1]
That incorporates at least two concepts that are typically associated with the term "blockchain" that go beyond the basic cryptographic data structure: they are distributed, and they are open. Lots of technologies use a similar data structure; git uses a similar data structure. But when a silicon valley startup comes to you and pitches you on their "hot new blockchain tech" they probably don't mean git.
[1]: https://hbr.org/2016/05/the-impact-of-the-blockchain-goes-be...
>but on Bitcoin's use of similar technology to make a distributed ledger.
That doesn't really change a thing. Bitcoin merely uses a blockchain to ensure consensus, if all nodes are trusted then you don't need proof of work and you can switch to simply linking the list (see Git or Ethereum Testnets), and the contents of the blockchain are mostly irrelevant too (you can put anything on there, transactions are merely one type of thing you put in there)
At it's most basic, a blockchain is just a directed graph of nodes where a cryptographic method links two nodes together in a child-parent relationship. Everything else is just added fluff for the specific usecase.
Under your definition, every CBC mode stream cipher could be called a blockchain, which just makes the term meaningless. It was coined for a specific purpose: to describe how Bitcoin and related cryptocurrencies operate at a technical level, especially how they guarantee integrity and prevent double-spending.
How difficult is it to introduce illegal data into, say, Bitcoin's blockchain?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15915520
There is a huge difference between the cryptocurrency blockchain and the enterprise-y blockchain. They are not the same thing which kinda confuses the whole message.
Don't get caught up in hype hype
> For all that she has learned, Radia is first to confess that she is by no means an expert in the technology — admitting that she cannot distinguish exactly what makes something blockchain technology
The article is right about one thing though - a lot of people are talking blockchains up without having any idea about what they are or how they work.
Conversely, a lot of people, like Radia in the article, are talking blockchains down, without understanding them.
Note that you said asymmetric cryptography and your parent said that asymmetric cryptography is not the basis of the block chain. And they would be right, at its core, the blockchain consists of blocks of transactions in a Merkle tree. The Merkle tree typically uses a cryptographically strong hash, otherwise it would be possible to modify the Merkle tree without anyone noticing. But a hash is not asymmetric cryptography.
In many applications of the blockchain, asymmetric cryptography is used to sign transactions. But that is largely orthogonal to the blockchain as a data structure. The blockchain as a data structure has useful applications without transaction signing, etc.
What makes the discussion clouded is that some people define 'block chain' as transaction blocks in a Merkle tree, while others also consider distributed consensus, etc. to be part of the block chain.
Blockchains as defined this way have existed long before there was a proof-of-work based consensus protocol to make Bitcoin a reality. In their more general form they are called "Merkel trees". Filesystems aren't generally structured this way but, for example, git repositories are Merkel trees.
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/D5AYH7/german-chancellor-angela-mer...
The only cryptography is the SHA1 hash that links commits together, otherwise all cryptography is optional.
And that's totally okay because such repositories are usually run by people who have the authority over it.
A blockchain is a special kind of linked graph that uses cryptography to link each node, otherwise, there are no additional requirements and there are plenty of reasons you might not want anything else.
Nowadays, it appears to be used to refer to a distributed database that use blockchains or merkle trees (binary trees with hash pointers) and has a consensus algorithm.
Does this assertion come from a person who understands, or doesn't understand blockchain? :)
Because if you don't understand it, I would take your assertion with a grain of salt. And if you think you understand it, but you make this assertion, it means you disagree with many people that understand it... which hints that maybe you don't understand it after all ;)
The subset who have CS degrees maybe
Many-to-most "blockchain experts" are hazy on where, exactly, the line between blockchain and not-blockchain falls (or, at least, there's enough ambiguity that drawing a sharp line is difficult to impossible).
To use that uncertainty to call out someone who professes skepticism about the general concept, while explicitly confessing that same uncertainty, as a means of disqualifying her perspective is therefore literally a fallacy of irrelevance.
As an aside, I think it is somewhat likely that Satoshi was a state-sponsored actor or organization.
To what end?
States have a habit of going after anything that threatens their monopoly on the issuance of currency.
http://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirva...
It's hard to take comparisons of an internet-based technology to the internet itself seriously. Blockchain more comparable to something like Push [1]. Mostly overhyped, some good ideas that will survive and re-emerge years later, and massive amounts of malinvestment in technologies that didn't ultimately pan out. [2]
[1] https://www.wired.com/1997/03/ff-push/
[2] https://www.wired.com/2004/05/the-return-of-push/
In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive
They are less scalable
They have worse user experiences
They have volatile and uncertain governance
And no, this isn’t just because they are new. This won’t fundamentally change with bigger blocks, lightning networks, sharding, forks, self-amending ledgers, or any other technical solutions.
That’s because there are structural trade-offs that result directly from the primary design goal of these services, beneath which all other goals must be subordinated in order for them to be relevant: decentralization.
[0]https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80
Genuine question: What applications/problems it is useful for? Have you seen a good application yet (other than currencies)?
Would love to learn about the positives, from this community.
A “smart contract” is basically an ordinary payment contract where execution steps are gated by separate semaphore controlled by sunsets of the participant set.
What can you do with that? It’s hard to answer without being so general as to be useless, or without getting too specific such that we lose the big picture.
“Block chain” is about replacing courts and arbitration with a computer network, and replacing contract lawyers with programmers. What makes this possible is the fair, untrusted, equal access semaphore a bitcoin spend provides.
seriously, please: tell me one genuine use case for block chains that conventional database stack can't do?
There's literally nothing a blockchain can do that a trusted central database couldn't do. So you only need a blockchain if you can't trust a central database. As a result, the answer to the question you've posed is always going to be a political one, not a technical one. ("It lets banks that don't trust each other keep a shared database of transactions." "It lets citizens who don't trust their various governments exchange currency." "It lets shipping companies that don't trust each other digitize their manifests." "It lets scientists prove their papers were published on a certain date.")
Re your shipping manifest example - can you expand on this - how does this work?
The main point is that, unlike a situation where you would be using a centralized database, there is no need to have a central trusted party to operate the database - the source of trust is distributed among the mining power of all nodes in the network.
If this document is digital, then I might get screwed if you lose stuff or stuff gets damaged and you remove it from the Bill of Lading and say you never saw the goods. Or you might get screwed if I add new stuff to the Bill of Lading after you load the goods and claim you didn't deliver it. So one way to solve this is to put the document and both of our signatures in a blockchain, and now we all agree that this is what we saw on that date.
- Buying contraband
- Ransom payments
- Pump and dump schemes
- Money laundering
Remains to be seen how it will impact the everyday lives of regular people.
At it's core, a blockchain is just a really efficient way of guaranteeing the integrity of any given ledger.
I am working on a giftcard purchasing and issuing system at the moment, for example.
I could use a chain of SHA256 hashes of each row hashed upon each previous row of data's SHA256 hash in our MySQL db to make sure that none of my employees were giving themselves an early Christmas bonus if you know what I mean.
Nobody could change any of the giftcard values without being noticed.
Blockchain technology is not only useful for cryptocurrencies.
[0] https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=mother+of+the+i...
* Not quite the middle of nowhere, but certainly not a tech hub
a lot of bitcoin followers seem to think that decentralization saves us from arbitrary value adjustments. decentralization completely exposes currency to volatility and does not self-stabilize nicely regardless how many people use it, because supply is broken. this false idea that decentralization is good for currency shows lack of understanding in how currency works. a central authority is required to protect the value of currency. that is why central bank prints money and does QE. it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies. without central authority, it cannot function as currency.
The only problem I see, if you could even call it that, is that bitcoin "banks" (exchanges?) are restricted to being 100% warehousing operations since there is nobody to bail them out if (when?) they decide they can make more profit earning interest by loaning out the funds they are contractually obligated to hold.
If you want to avoid a run on your bitcoin exchange then simply don't engage in fractional reserve banking...or, I suppose, don't lose all your holdings to hackers.
Central banks have very little influence on the value of their currency once people lose faith in it, people will buy anything instead of holding on to their (usually rapidly devaluing) currency.
One thing every holder of bitcoin knows is it will never suffer through hyperinflation, ever.
So you're saying there is no way to have a stable economy without control over your currency?
A central bank can ultimately control the value of a currency by either grabbing assets on the free market and emitting currency - or the inverse - grabbing currency and selling off the underlying asset.
This is a very powerful way to control volatility.
Gold has fairly strict supply and it moves around a lot.
If the US Fed really, really wanted to control the USD vis-a-vis some other currency, they could do that.
"I believe most currencies originated in a decentralised way"
Ah? No, definitely not. Except for gold ... currencies have issuers, rules, a central bank of sorts. Like the King. Or whatever.
Everyone keep saying that but these words are empty. What are consequences of regular stock market? And what difference does it make for someone who bought bitcoin for $15,000 and sold for $50,000 ?
I fail to understand how frightening people helps? Its been acknowledged so many times yes its a bubble. Yes, a major correction is in works, but shorting or selling now is "catching falling knives" (term I learnt trading stocks in 80s). But when the bubble burst EVENTUALLY, you won't be able to buy bitcoin for 1 cent, as it will never go back to basics again. We need deep correction so that we can test major mining holders how much they withstand so 80% correction would be healthy for Bitcoin, if we want to (should!) look at it at any other trading stock.
The truth is - unless something else comes along, there is almost infinite number of dollars waiting to be convert to bitcoins. these traders will be passing a baton to each other for a very long time to come.
So, what you're saying is they protect the value of a currency by devaluing it?
> it is not a conspiracy to enrich some cronies. without central authority, it cannot function as currency.
No, it's a conspiracy to tax the population without actually taxing them through devaluing the currency (aka inflation). Enriching some cronies is merely a side effect that keeps the bankers in line (and, more importantly, in the cartel) since they profit handsomely through fractional reserve banking and debt monetization -- neither of which is possible "without central authority".
A central banks job is to stabilize the currency and the relevant economy. Controlling liquidity and interest rates are two tools to affect this change. Side effects of which are controlling the rate of inflation.
Stability is the key for a currency at global level.
But don't take my word for it:
"The Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System and the Federal Open Market Committee shall maintain long run growth of the monetary and credit aggregates commensurate with the economy's long run potential to increase production, so as to promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, and moderate long-term interest rates."
https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/section2a.htm
But, anyhoo, totally off topic.
Not even to mention the negative effects inflationary policies have on the factors of production but, as you're some kind of expert, I obviously don't have to.
I really should know better than to try to discuss economic issues with someone who can't even manage to use a shift key but, as the say, "someone is wrong on the internet."
It's an awesome technology for what it does, and it will probably be more _useful_ than most people realize right now (if we ignore other cryptocurrencies on the market). But that doesn't mean that bitcoins themselves are going to be worth more.
Proof? I use it as a currency all the time. I also use Monero (which btw is specifically designed to be a real currency) yet its price keeps rising. QED. And by the way, these are not dark web purchases. Not that it matters at all.
How do I use it as a currency? Easy. Actually use it. If you worry about price going down, just convert it to USD when you receive it. Think of it as a settlement layer. Because... it is. There. Now you get to try to tell me why what I said is false.
Surely you're not saying that Bitcoin cant be a currency because it hasnt taken over the world yet, therefore it still has relevant volatility.
By the way, exactly 0 of the 5 properties of a currency are "no volatility".
And this is part is funny. Would you care to quantify the bounds of volatility at which a security tranforms into a currency?
Does market manipulation NOT happen in foreign currency exchange?
Do you consider USD Tether a currency?
/me gets lawnchair out
Guess this means no one is able to refute my price vs value claim either.
Proof of Work is ultimately a set of well-balanced design decisions employing well-known technology. Maybe that's why people have a hard time seeing the novelty in it: they just see a bag of individual technologies and miss the delicacy of the design.
While most articles infer they are building these things on top of the public Ethereum blockchain it is more likely they are basing it on top of R3CEV[0].
Either sloppy reporting or part of a grander pump-and-dump scheme, you decide...
[0]https://www.coindesk.com/r3cev-blockchain-test-11-banks/
Back when they were still planning things out I dropped some economic theory on them (over gas pricing IIRC) and they were basically like "nah, that would hurt our cabal". I wish I had a link because I'm not even exaggerating. Totally left a bad taste in my mouth.
Then I hear about hard forks and proof of stake and "welcome, my son, welcome to the machine..."
Sound advice for all problem solving.
There is a clear distinction between public/permissionless blockchains (e.g. Bitcoin) and distributed ledgers (misnamed as private blockchains). The article is referring mainly to the later.
Bitcoin is a theoretical and practical computer science innovation even if the Bitcoin price goes down to $ 0. The innovation covers a search for decades for a secure P2P and [central] bankless protocol solving the multiple spending problem. This innovation uses game theory and security, and we expect that there will be new innovations around this concept. Check “Blockchain Research Resources” [1]
Regarding distributed ledgers the signal to noise ratio is very low (lot of hype). To clarify this we must understand that distributed ledgers existed long before the blockchain and are not really connected to Bitcoin and other public blockchains beyond reusing some part of those implementations but without the core innovation. These are examples of previous initiatives:
The Bitcoin paper is from 2008 while Nick Szabo’s smart contracts concept is from 1994 [2]
if we go back in time we can find the AMIX project in 1988 [3]
Another concept used in a distributed ledger is the idea of immutability of data recorded there. Ideas of log immutability can be traced back to a 1995 Spanish article titled “VCR y PEO, dos protocolos criptográficos simples” [4] and then reviewed in 1998 in English as “VCR and PEO revised” [5]. Bruce Schneier also published similar works in 1997 with Automatic Event-Stream Notorization Using Digital Signatures and in 1998 as “Cryptographic Support for Secure Logs on Untrusted Machines” [6]. Also look at "Logcrypt: Forward Security and Public Verification for Secure Audit Logs" [7].
[1] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J8hehbnZWzcIUMQcxMiGbjz8...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smart_contract#History
[3] http://erights.org/smart-contracts/index.html and http://erights.org/smart-contracts/history/index.html
[4] https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/...
[5] https://www.coresecurity.com/system/files/publications/2016/...
[6] https://www.schneier.com/academic/paperfiles/paper-secure-lo...
[7] https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/441c/447bf74b1b9e403d043fbd...