The blockchain community are their own worst enemies. There are some interesting use cases for the technology, but those are lost in the noise of the big crowd that treat it like a get-rich-quick scheme.
All the “HODL”, “diamond hands” and other memes in those circles essentially amount to trying to rally people to (artificially) increase the price of Bitcoin/Ethereum/whatever.
And the more they succeed in doing so, the larger the incentive to run scams or waste power running “mining” computers.
that is the reason why i stopped being involved with blockchain. i can't in good conscience support a technology that is mostly used to exploit people and use a lot of energy for little benefit. and i don't want to continuously have to explain that the project i am supporting is not a scam and is worth the energy usage, when most of the people probably think i am just a scammer and anti-environmentalist for supporting a blockchain project.
There are legitimate criticism to blockchain technologies and arguments that could be made against its usefulness in the future.
However, one of the things that fuel my believe on blockchain is how many the arguments against it are falacies and/or full of ignorance like this one.
"Someone made the wrong assertion that git is blockchain IMPLIES THAT blockchain is going down and their adepts are desperate" a very simple fallacy to realize to be honest, not worthy of hacker news.
Also ignorant things like: "stumping up in a complicated, exclusionary, and non-existent proof-of-stake system its advocates claim is just around the corner every six months"
1. It is not complicated, I understand it
2. It is less exclusionary than proof of work
3. It exists
4. It launches next month (aprox 15th September) on Ethereum
At some fundamental level, blockchains do not generate money, it just moves it around. The idea that a content creator might be rewarded every time her site is shown, or every time her in-game items are used, or every time her painting is re-sold sounds attractive. But the idea that the rest of us might have to pay a micro-transaction every time we visit a site, or every time we use an in-game item, or every time we re-sell our property is repugnant.
This is the fundamental problem with blockchain/web3 and you will notice that everyone shilling for it is very careful to focus on one side of the coin.
The fact that some of those systems start to approach usability is also a very weak reason to switch from the existing usable systems. The non-buzzword web3 exists, works, and is called "micro-transactions".
Blockchains, like everything in existence besides central banks, can’t create money. (Cryptocurrencies are not money or currencies.) However, they can create value.
I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money to send my site to people requesting it. Why shouldn’t I be able to say that my sending it to them is conditional on them compensating me for that cost?
This doesn’t take a cryptocurrency to implement, I believe amazon used to have a similar service to facilitate sub-penny transactions. But it does take a cryptocurrency to implement it in a decentralized way, a way that’s credibly impartial, and can’t ban you because you irritated amazon, and can’t try to raise its take once network effects have set in.
(Cryptocurrencies have their own problems, like the persistent issues with scaling, but let’s say those are solved within our lifetimes and the cost of doing something on Ethereum is within an OOM of doing it on AWS.)
If something like this “pay me a tenth of a penny to view my site” became commonplace, that could enable new trades that otherwise couldn’t exist. For example, I’m not willing to put ads on my site and not enough people are going to donate to me to make updating my site not something I do out of the goodness of my heart. But if I could have this arrangement, maybe things would look different. It would be one more way of being compensated for making things that other people want to use, and it would have much better incentives than advertising.
That’s an example of how cryptocurrencies can create value by moving money around.
> Blockchains, like everything in existence besides central banks, can’t create money. (Cryptocurrencies are not money or currencies.) However, they can create value.
That's the type of facetious claim that leads everyone to tune off Blockchain/web3 snake oil salespersons. If your notion of value depends on your ability to generate artificial scarsity then it's not worth even debating.
> I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money (...)
Completely irrelevant. Like everything else in the whole world, if you're considering providing a service to the public but you think it would cost you too much to justify the trouble, then don't, and go do something fruitful with your life.
Just because you can come up with an idea to provide something, that does not mean you are automatically owed profit or even revenue, nor does it mean you are free to force everyone to hand over their hard-earned money to you just because you want to install your parking meter on their mouse button.
> I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money to send my site to people requesting it. Why shouldn’t I be able to say that my sending it to them is conditional on them compensating me for that cost?
Charging a fee to visit a site, even a very small fee, is a dark path.
First, there is an ethical dilemma built in because you are charging users for an unknown quantity; in order to know what you’re selling visitors will have to buy it from you first. The cost of those initial visits is traditionally a cost of business accepted by the seller.
Let’s frame this with an analogy to a retail store. I business owner accepts the cost of leasing a building, and the cost of staffing it. When you visit the store you make no promise of purchase, and the owner accepts that they have an obligation to demonstrate a value proposition which visitors will accept.
Websites are effectively the same: owners accept the cost of the lease (domain, hosting) and have to provide a value proposition worthy of purchase. If the value proposition isn’t there, the business fails.
You may be thinking now of strip clubs and music venues, where you have to pay a cover charge to enter. This seems analogous to web3, but it has a key difference: you are provided a lot of information before you pay that cover charge. You can see how many people are there, if the place looks clean and well maintained, maybe you can hear the music from outside and you get to decide if the cover is a decent value. Web3 is blind, you get charged a fee before you have any information about what the value is.
Secondly, there is a question about the fairness of charging a secondary fee to use the internet. You are already paying an ISP to access the internet, and web3 wants you to pay a new fee to also simply use the internet.
This may be a trivial question for many people, but what about the impoverished? Poor people exist everywhere, and one of the beautiful parts of the internet is that we find ways to connect even the very poor. Governments and philanthropies around the world find ways to overcome the architectural cost of providing connectivity to even the poorest, and adding yet another burden to them is, to me, unquestionably wrong.
Thirdly, there is the question of what happens to innovation when people have to decide blindly if they want to visit a new site? If I know that clicking a link will have a real cost, will I?
Another beautiful thing about the internet is that it provides a platform to so many to pitch their… whatever. Anyone can put up a site and try their luck on the market without the requirement of loans and staff. This is why network neutrality is so important, we can’t allow the big players to control the flow of traffic and stifle innovation from new faces.
Web3 violates this by making you question the value of a click. Are you going to click on the link from the new guy? Maybe, but maybe not. Without transactional visits the question doesn’t exist.
It may seem simple from your perspective, but charging per visit in the web3 fashion has real sustainability questions we need to address, and crypto bros really want us to just not worry about it.
I have a friend from college who works for a legitimate company that has a legitimate use for blockchain technology where it does actually seem to work pretty well. It's not a currency, there's no zero-trust model (instead, it's used for verifying very large datasets that are used by multiple companies/entities). I think there is some legitimate use for this type of tech, but currency is probably not one of them, and they're far more limited in practicality than what would be suggested by all the SV money being thrown into them.
Well, it technically meets the zero-trust definition, but it's not a core concern because it's entirely privately controlled by cooperative entities. It seems to be functioning more or less as a distributed verification database (the datasets are massive genetic sequences or something)
Serious question: What problems do you feel blockchains solves? Just non-governmental currency? I've found another use case that isn't blockchain for blockchain's sake.
Also, I don't follow Eth but are proof-of-stake pools prohibited? Can one address stake more than X (1?) Eth?
Blockchain seems to have been introduced as a solution in search of a problem. Then it turned into a buzzword (I mean my dentist was talking to me about blockchain a week ago since she knows I am in tech) that is (was?) being applied to random things without being asked what are we solving for.
The technology for blockchain is interesting, but there are so few actual use cases that a blockchain actually does anything useful and even those few use cases you need to make sure there is incentive for it to be distributed enough.
What problem does Mastodon solve? Just non-Twitter shortform social networking? What about Diaspora, PeerTube, etc?
Not being beholden to a central authority (whether that authority be Twitter, PayPal, or the US government) is intrinsically valuable to a lot of people. Blockchains are just a convenient and proven way of enabling that sort of independence.
Granted, decentralization is a bit of a niche, and the cryptocurrency gold rush has made it way more mainstream than it has any right to be at this point in time given its drawbacks. But that doesn't mean it's not valuable.
As for blockchain specifically: yes, decentralized payments seems to be the primary use case. But once you have a decentralized payments system, that enables the creation of a whole bunch of other decentralized applications that would not have otherwise been possible. That's why most "blockchain" projects start with a currency and then build from there: it's hard to build decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2][3] without first having a decentralized way to pay for those services.
The problem is that most use-cases for blockchain require being beholden to a central authority anyway, because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and it’s either impossible or prohibitively inefficient to also run distributed applications that interact with the blockchain.
I think anyone who’s trying to achieve trustlessness by introducing more complexity into software is running a fools’ errand. Make simple, auditable systems.
Uh... no? What single, central authority are you beholden to when you transact using Bitcoin?
"Lots of mining is centralized in large pools." or "lots of people choose to buy their Bitcoin through Coinbase" is not anywhere near the same level of dependence on a central authority as "PayPal can freeze my account at any time and I'm SOL". It's like claiming the internet is a centralized system because AWS exists.
If most of the internet is on the AWS that is a pretty understandable argument, no? Mt. Gox was responsible for 70% of Bitcoin transactions at its peak.
Most buy coins through exchanges, via fiat as an intermediary. They upload a driver's license which the intermediary keeps on file for KYC purposes.
If Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general is supposed to decentralize finance how is it going to attain that goal if "doing it properly" requires installing a miner or exchanging cash for a flash drive in a Walmart parking lot? We're talking about the typical person globally whose conception of the internet might just be Facebook.
No, it’s like claiming the internet is centralized because google exists, except the alternative to things like coinbase is way more difficult to use than alternatives to big search engines. It’s a pretty valid argument
There are working pools on Ethereum's proof-of-stake. Each validator node is 32 ETH but the pool can run multiple validators, and give people a way to deposit smaller amounts.
I tried reading the Tezos proof-of-stake scheme [0], but it seems like it has some very obvious holes that leave security gaps wide open (namely, once you get to somewhere around 50%, probably less, you can completely predict and control the PRNG outputs, giving you full capture of the network), which makes me feel like I still don't quite understand it.
I won't go into whether it's exclusionary or not. That depends on your economic viewpoint. Personally, I think they're about the same -- those with the wealth control the network.
And they've consistently been pushing back The Merge's launch date less than a month than the go-to date. I remember when they wanted to launch it in April 2022. And then May. And then June [1].
Former protocol developer for Tezos here. Once you get to 33% of the stake you can stop the chain, so the idea that you could control the RNG at 50% isn’t that scary by comparison.
You can only influence the RNG if you go last. That is to say, you could not completely predict or control the RNG unless you control 100% of the stake. At 50% of the stake, you go last 50% of the time, and even when you go last you don't have the ability to fully control the RNG (although you could do a pretty good job at 50%, at substantial expense to yourself).
The only means anyone has of influencing the RNG is by not revealing their random contribution, which they're punished for by losing their staking rewards. (The original tezos whitepaper had a higher penalty, I believe you forfeit an additional "safety bond", but I don't know if that made it into the implementation.) The hope is that incentives like these are enough to discourage that behavior. All cryptocurrencies depend on incentives for security, in part for cases like these.
But this is a particularly bad case where someone with a sub-33% stake could attack the chain. Fortunately, at <33% control of the stake, the damage you could cause from that attack is small and the attack would be very expensive, so it’s not considered a major problem. I think the worst you could do is censor some transactions for a time, and deprive some others of their staking rewards.
(Although I was a protocol developer, I never worked on anything related to this, so don't take my word as gospel.)
It is not as permissionless as PoW. Anybody can mine a GPU mineable coin, but to stake you need to find existing owners willing to sell you enough coins to stake with.
This reflects the fact that PoW is also a distribution method in addition to a consensus method, while PoS is only the latter.
Are you not doing the same thing that the author is doing? The author has a bias against blockchain, sees blockchain proponents making a poor argument, and that reinforces their bias against blockchains.
You have a bias seemingly in favor of blockchains, you see a blockchain critic making a poor argument, and that reinforces your belief in blockchains.
I think the linked post makes good points (e.g. git and blockchains are related but not broadly comparable) wrapped up in a lot of unnecessary opinion.
Surely the rational approach is to just discount bad arguments, not to treat them as evidence to reinforce the opposite position.
Also apart from Ethereum switch to PoS planned soon (hopefully), there is a lot of PoS blockchains in production today. Cosmos (ATOM) [0], for instance, is live since march 2019 and going very well, spawning a whole ecosystem of PoS blockcains using Cosmos SDK [1]
I partly disagree with the author, but glancing at other articles of the same blog, it seems that nuance is often left out.
On technical merits, the first point is kind of invalid. You can't rewrite history in git without changing commit IDs. And the two others are the same point: git doesn't have a distributed consesus mechanism.
It would be very easy to build one, though, which gets git close enough for comparison purposes. And the "blockchain" term only hints at the merkle tree aspect.
Now, on rebranding: while I feel the comparison apt, it shouldn't be used as a successfull example of blockchain technology. It can to an extent, but blockchain means something different in people's mind. I'd still do the comparison while pointing out the difference.
And that's something I often do, when explaining how either works.
And to me, blockchain (including consensus) is still a mathematical curiosity that hasn't proven useful yet. I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.
> git doesn't have a distributed consesus mechanism
It doesn't have an automated distributed consensus mechanism.
It does have a manual distributed consensus mechanism; that's basically how every popular open source project works. You fork the project, make a change, and if your commit is an improvement over the project you forked people will be inclined to merge it into their repositories, eventually arriving at a consensus.
In practice this process is often more centralized than distributed, but it doesn't have to be. If you want to 51% attack a popular repo, all you have to do is make constant, quality improvements to the project over time, and eventually your fork may well become the dominant one even over the objections of any centralized authorities.
The argument that git can have consensus if people just agree to isn’t compelling in this context. The distinction here is that with blockchain, consensus is mandatory and has a specific technical meaning. With git, consensus is optional at best, achieved only manually, is easily broken by rogue activity, and the word consensus might not even mean the same thing and can change over time in the case of git - there are lots of examples of original projects or forks that have claimed to be the one and only place people should concentrate their efforts, only to get abandoned in favor of something else later.
> You can't rewrite history in git without changing commit IDs.
But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility. Not inherently.
This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have.
To say that you can't rewrite history without changing commit IDs is like saying you can't prove a certain point without using the letter 'e'. Like… why are you even bringing up such a restriction?
> but blockchain means something different in people's mind
Right. Blockchain means "distributed ledger", which git is not. To say that git is one too is a technicality on the level of saying it's "wrong" to say "have your cake and eat it too", when it's actually "eat your cake and have it too".
It's not wrong, just not meaningful.
The only reason, in my opinion, to talk about the similarities between "blockchain" and git is to do exactly what this article does: to remove confusion in the mind of the listener that they are in any way meaningfully similar.
> I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.
Maybe in the future you'll mine the next cryptocurrency by proof of work in the form of "help this self-driving car that's stuck at an intersection it doesn't understand".
> But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility.
How is that not a useful, intentional feature of git? Commit IDs (hashes) ensure DAG consistency as well as many other benefits. Linus explains it better than I could[0].
> This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have.
It depends on the context. Try to rewrite commits in a PR for any public repo and see whether others agree it's a useful feature.
Anyway, I think you're proving the counter point: this is a shared feature of git and block chains - you know when history has been rewritten because the hashes changed.
I think you didn't take the parent's suggestion to make a PR seriously enough.
It is closer than you seem to think: rewriting history in a public, published repository will wreak havoc across contributors'clones. Contributors will have to contact upstream and ask if there was a reason, if it was intentional, or a malicious event. Especially if the root commit was changed, in which case you can't even attempt to merge repositories.
I don't really see why you couldn't backtrack the bitcoin blockchain, pretend an arbitrary block is the most recent one, and start your fork from there. The difference is,is that if you want to include some subsequent blocks, you will have to provide some proofs of work.
In both cases, some convincing is needed to move the consensus base to a new one.
> One of the cardinal rules of Git is that, since so much work is local within your clone, you have a great deal of freedom to rewrite your history locally. However, once you push your work, it is a different story entirely, and you should consider pushed work as final unless you have good reason to change it. In short, you should avoid pushing your work until you’re happy with it and ready to share it with the rest of the world.
Also:
> it can rewrite huge swaths of your history, so you probably shouldn’t use it unless your project isn’t yet public and other people haven’t based work off the commits you’re about to rewrite
This is git 101. People can still choose to follow your rewritten history fork though, and it's also the case for bitcoin.
It’s important for audit ability and security that people can’t change commit ids from under you. If you run a security review of commit A and decide it’s safe to automatically deploy on your production systems, you’re only doing that because you know commit A can’t be changed.
Yes, it's a hiccup. But not fundamental because it is actually possible to do it.
A company can have a flag day, and keep a mapping of old hash to new hash for audit purposes.
I'm not saying do it willy nilly, but repos are fundamentally below the humans and any needs they have. Blockchains say code is law, and a fork (see eth DAO) is a complete clusterfuck.
Scrubbing some PII you legally need to remove from the corp codebase? Some poking, yes, but not a disaster.
Whereas they say there's plenty of child porn in the bitcoin Blockchain.
I don't think the argument has to go both ways. Blockchains can be indebted to some prior art in distributed version control systems without being similar or identical to them, and without those DVCSs being blockchains.
the innovation with blockchain is that it adds a feature that git doesn't have, namely to make it expensive to add new entries and very difficult to fork the chain.
on the other hand, i believe blockchain is used for many projects that don't need that new feature, where something similar to git would suffice. in other words a lot of blockchain uses are not innovative in that they don't enable something that would not have been possible without blockchain.
part of the problem is that many people don't know that it is possible to build an immutable history without blockchain. that's why compariosns to git, like this one are useful.
another part is that there are no general purpose libraries that are decoupled from file based version control (that i am aware of) that could be used. so people turn to blockchain because it is the most obvious thing to use. just like people use kubernetes even when in many cases that is overkill and unnecessary to solve a particular problem.
I think this is a much better way to take it. Blockchains are super useful. They solve problems in distributed systems very elegantly and effectivly.
It is the consensus part of a crypto currency blockchains that is the part I usually have objections to. I have increasingly started to realize that it is surprisingly few situations you want such a rigid type of consensus and consistency. In computer systems you usually want something much more efficient and in human systems, in the places where you really need consensus it is usually very required to have systems like our institutions that are filled with checks and balances for fault tolerance and fairness. And in most places you just have to realize consensus in a society is really hard and reeeeally slow - and I don't know if that is possible to change.
There's a lot of nitpicking around this topic. Mainly because "a chain of blocks" only describes the Merkle Tree part of "blockchain technologies".
I'd personally argue that "blockchain" is a bad way to describe immutable, decentralized ledgers, because it inherently leaves out some of the defining aspects.
However, the term has been way too established for a long time now, so the whole discussion is moot.
No, but I have heard blockchain boosters say that blockchains are "kind of like Git!" Of course, "kind of like" doesn't mean anything like "equivalent", but it draws upon something established to legitimise something that's not.
Fossil has a pretty thoughtful analysis[0] about whether it fits the definition of a blockchain. If you're interested in those semantics, it's far better than the OP's treatment, IMHO.
Does he have any examples of people making this claim? Otherwise the post just seems like a lengthy strawman (or what's the name for an argument based on defeating a made-up statement?).
The problem is not the blockchain, but the cryptocurrency with it's harmful consent-mechanism, also all the scams happening with it. These are two different technologies. And only one of them is highly problematic.
85% of email is spam[1], but the remaining 15% is really useful and helps run the world.
same in everything: probably 85% of songs i don't like, 10% i'll listen to, 5% is amazing.
85% of crypto is nonsense, 10% is interesting, 5% transformative.
i find it a useful mental model to not be annoyed at everything i encounter. if theres tons of people saying taylor swift is great theres probably one song im gonna like. apply it to crypto too.
The thing about crypto is that 50% of crypto is outright scams, 30% is nonsense, 15% is interesting academically but completely useless, and 5% is transformative in a very narrow particular set of circumstances that very few people actually have.
A perfunctory search shows there are over 20,000* cryptocurrencies in 2022. Saying that 3,000 (15%) are interesting|transformative is a bit of a stretch, especially given that over 19,990 of cryptocurrencies are in complete obscurity for the general public: if a coin is interesting|transformative in a forest with no one to hodl it, how interesting/transformative is it really? Sturgeon's law should probably be amended with "90% percent of Sturgeon's law examples are crud".
* "As of July 2022, there are 20,268 cryptocurrencies in existence. However, not all cryptocurrencies are active or valuable. Discounting many “dead” cryptos leaves only around 10,953 active cryptocurrencies." [1] — 15% of active cryptocurrencies in 2022 would be ~1,643, the point still stands.
I think those are great examples of the Pareto Principle [1]. It says 80% of the results come from 20% of the causes. Your examples could be generalized to an extension principle: 30% of the consequences come from 15% of the causes, and 50% come from a separate 5% of the causes.
They are applying Sturgeon's law [1] ("ninety-percent of everything is crud"), not Pareto, common misconception.
Pareto would be that 80% of all crypto transactions are done by 20% of all the cryptocurrencies (given 10,953 active cryptos, that would be 2,190), which also doesn't stand since ~99% of all crypto transactions are done by the top 10 cryptos (BTC, ETH, etc.), textbook oligopoly [2].
There's 20'000 cryptocurrencies, and zero actual use cases outside of crimes like tax evasion, money laundering, and buying illegal things. So your percentages are a bit off, and should be more like 0.
I wouldn't even classify buying illegal drugs on the internet, which is the most moral of all cryptocurrency use cases, as "transformative".
There is a big difference between nearly 100% scam, and something like 1% scam. And most of the scames happening with non-crypto are not exclusive to the currency, they would happen with crypto too, if it had wider usage.
Scams are everywhere, though. Millions are scammed through shitty toolbars, and personal data is brokered to the highest bidders. Cryptocurrency has issues, but generalizing it as the problem isn't necessarily constructive to society.
Then where are the legit cryptocurrency use cases? At the moment it seems, except people playing around for the sake of playing, every other usage is just scamming the fools or scamming the state. And while other cases were tested, they failed.
In a self-contained fantasy economy with no attachment points to the real world, this might be compelling. In practice, the rest of the economy, society, etc. doesn't operate in a self-sovereign way, and neither do you.
It's not much different than the problem of micronations[1]. Exciting as they are for D&Ders of a sort, they aren't real nations for the simple reason that they lack a defining feature of a nation (among others): that everyone else think they're a nation.
Cryptocurrency is perhaps not as extreme; a reasonably large number of people appear to be persuaded that units of cryptocurrency are a real asset, and some begrudging convertibility into other kinds of assets (a defining feature of a currency) does exist. Still, it suffers from a similar problem, in kind if not in degree.
This is the difficult part for me with Cryptocurrency. Sure, the idea is cool, but I can't really use crypto with any of the services I use except for maybe my VPS provider or other technical services (which requires me to provide an email address anyway). I'd love to hear about mainstream services allowing financial transactions through cryptocurrency. Pornhub is the only mainstream/non-tech service I can think of.
The only practical use for me with cryptocurrency would be to convert it back into USD eventually.
I suppose crypto enthusiasts would argue that this is just a matter of not having reached the tipping point for mass adoption yet (as with electric vehicles, for instance). However, I've heard that since the late 2000s.
Same can be said about your local classroom, universities, and even companies. There's different types of currencies (whether it's your grades or performance reviews), cryptocurrency is no different than the value that is exchanged between two members of the community.
Let's not assume that it's going to be the end-all and be-all, because it's not. It's a medium of exchange between members of a community (BTC, ETH, Doge, or whatever).
The common misconception that "oh crypto is such a scam" type of group is that they assume this is designed to replace something else. It's not a replacement of any kind, it's a tool for a medium of exchange between communities.
Smells like law-evasion, so scam the state.
What assets/values do you need to manage? What does permissionless means in that case? And why is crypto superior to existing solutions? And no, self-sovereignity is not an acceptable answer here, unless you life in north-korea.
Absolutely not. My country wants to know what assets (or waht they're worth to be more precise) I have end of Year, so I declare it. I have no problems with that. Good living conditions have a price so I happily pay my cut. If I don't like it, I'll leave.
Permissionless means that there is no central entity needed to observe or even approve my actions with my assets.
What existing solutions?
I strongly disagree, self-soverignty is a personal decision. It doesn't matter in what country you live.
I have a rule that I do not take any discussion about how "some people are saying!" seriously unless the discussion includes direct links to people saying that.
I didn’t see a single link in the article to the pro-blockchain crowd trying to claim Git is blockchain. It’s almost always the anti-blockchain crowd that says “blockchains don’t add anything new, it’s just Git with scams on it”.
I suspect this person has misinterpreted the messaging they’re hearing and misunderstood the position being taken.
It’s also unclear if they don’t know how to spell Ethereum or if they’re weakening their argument by purposely misspelling it.
This is a somewhat poorly worded title. At first glance it sounds like git is the bad technology that’s being rebranded, which made absolutely no sense. I had to read the article to realize that some blockchain people are claiming git as a kind of blockchain. But that’s not really a rebranding for blockchains, either. The title aside, the actual blog post makes some good points and is worth a read.
It annoys me that crypto bros think that bitcoin was the first use of bloody cks of data with hashing for an immutable ledger. Its common practice in many industries. Inc the one I work in (lotteries)
Bitcoin is a clever trick. But it's underlying tech is not anything radically new. It's just using some best practices for a perticular use case.
"git is a blockchain" is a meme that is exclusively pushed by anti-crypto activists because it provides the basis for their "no there there" talking point (note the popularity of this phrase in particular).
possible a scalable blockchain might provide 'distributed' platforms with novel ways of income that doesn't involve selling your data or showing adverts
reddit/moons thing is interesting as a kind of experiment of all issues there and problems to solve
im not convinced yet that the result will be something good, a kind of hypercapitalistic zero-sum internet rat race
The blockchain community are their own worst enemies. There are some interesting use cases for the technology, but those are lost in the noise of the big crowd that treat it like a get-rich-quick scheme.
All the “HODL”, “diamond hands” and other memes in those circles essentially amount to trying to rally people to (artificially) increase the price of Bitcoin/Ethereum/whatever.
And the more they succeed in doing so, the larger the incentive to run scams or waste power running “mining” computers.
that is the reason why i stopped being involved with blockchain. i can't in good conscience support a technology that is mostly used to exploit people and use a lot of energy for little benefit. and i don't want to continuously have to explain that the project i am supporting is not a scam and is worth the energy usage, when most of the people probably think i am just a scammer and anti-environmentalist for supporting a blockchain project.
There are legitimate criticism to blockchain technologies and arguments that could be made against its usefulness in the future.
However, one of the things that fuel my believe on blockchain is how many the arguments against it are falacies and/or full of ignorance like this one.
"Someone made the wrong assertion that git is blockchain IMPLIES THAT blockchain is going down and their adepts are desperate" a very simple fallacy to realize to be honest, not worthy of hacker news.
Also ignorant things like: "stumping up in a complicated, exclusionary, and non-existent proof-of-stake system its advocates claim is just around the corner every six months"
1. It is not complicated, I understand it 2. It is less exclusionary than proof of work 3. It exists 4. It launches next month (aprox 15th September) on Ethereum
At some fundamental level, blockchains do not generate money, it just moves it around. The idea that a content creator might be rewarded every time her site is shown, or every time her in-game items are used, or every time her painting is re-sold sounds attractive. But the idea that the rest of us might have to pay a micro-transaction every time we visit a site, or every time we use an in-game item, or every time we re-sell our property is repugnant.
This is the fundamental problem with blockchain/web3 and you will notice that everyone shilling for it is very careful to focus on one side of the coin.
The fact that some of those systems start to approach usability is also a very weak reason to switch from the existing usable systems. The non-buzzword web3 exists, works, and is called "micro-transactions".
Blockchains, like everything in existence besides central banks, can’t create money. (Cryptocurrencies are not money or currencies.) However, they can create value.
I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money to send my site to people requesting it. Why shouldn’t I be able to say that my sending it to them is conditional on them compensating me for that cost?
This doesn’t take a cryptocurrency to implement, I believe amazon used to have a similar service to facilitate sub-penny transactions. But it does take a cryptocurrency to implement it in a decentralized way, a way that’s credibly impartial, and can’t ban you because you irritated amazon, and can’t try to raise its take once network effects have set in.
(Cryptocurrencies have their own problems, like the persistent issues with scaling, but let’s say those are solved within our lifetimes and the cost of doing something on Ethereum is within an OOM of doing it on AWS.)
If something like this “pay me a tenth of a penny to view my site” became commonplace, that could enable new trades that otherwise couldn’t exist. For example, I’m not willing to put ads on my site and not enough people are going to donate to me to make updating my site not something I do out of the goodness of my heart. But if I could have this arrangement, maybe things would look different. It would be one more way of being compensated for making things that other people want to use, and it would have much better incentives than advertising.
That’s an example of how cryptocurrencies can create value by moving money around.
> Blockchains, like everything in existence besides central banks, can’t create money. (Cryptocurrencies are not money or currencies.) However, they can create value.
That's the type of facetious claim that leads everyone to tune off Blockchain/web3 snake oil salespersons. If your notion of value depends on your ability to generate artificial scarsity then it's not worth even debating.
> I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money (...)
Completely irrelevant. Like everything else in the whole world, if you're considering providing a service to the public but you think it would cost you too much to justify the trouble, then don't, and go do something fruitful with your life.
Just because you can come up with an idea to provide something, that does not mean you are automatically owed profit or even revenue, nor does it mean you are free to force everyone to hand over their hard-earned money to you just because you want to install your parking meter on their mouse button.
> I don’t find the idea of a microtransaction every time someone visits a site to be repugnant at all. It costs me money to send my site to people requesting it. Why shouldn’t I be able to say that my sending it to them is conditional on them compensating me for that cost?
Charging a fee to visit a site, even a very small fee, is a dark path.
First, there is an ethical dilemma built in because you are charging users for an unknown quantity; in order to know what you’re selling visitors will have to buy it from you first. The cost of those initial visits is traditionally a cost of business accepted by the seller.
Let’s frame this with an analogy to a retail store. I business owner accepts the cost of leasing a building, and the cost of staffing it. When you visit the store you make no promise of purchase, and the owner accepts that they have an obligation to demonstrate a value proposition which visitors will accept.
Websites are effectively the same: owners accept the cost of the lease (domain, hosting) and have to provide a value proposition worthy of purchase. If the value proposition isn’t there, the business fails.
You may be thinking now of strip clubs and music venues, where you have to pay a cover charge to enter. This seems analogous to web3, but it has a key difference: you are provided a lot of information before you pay that cover charge. You can see how many people are there, if the place looks clean and well maintained, maybe you can hear the music from outside and you get to decide if the cover is a decent value. Web3 is blind, you get charged a fee before you have any information about what the value is.
Secondly, there is a question about the fairness of charging a secondary fee to use the internet. You are already paying an ISP to access the internet, and web3 wants you to pay a new fee to also simply use the internet.
This may be a trivial question for many people, but what about the impoverished? Poor people exist everywhere, and one of the beautiful parts of the internet is that we find ways to connect even the very poor. Governments and philanthropies around the world find ways to overcome the architectural cost of providing connectivity to even the poorest, and adding yet another burden to them is, to me, unquestionably wrong.
Thirdly, there is the question of what happens to innovation when people have to decide blindly if they want to visit a new site? If I know that clicking a link will have a real cost, will I?
Another beautiful thing about the internet is that it provides a platform to so many to pitch their… whatever. Anyone can put up a site and try their luck on the market without the requirement of loans and staff. This is why network neutrality is so important, we can’t allow the big players to control the flow of traffic and stifle innovation from new faces.
Web3 violates this by making you question the value of a click. Are you going to click on the link from the new guy? Maybe, but maybe not. Without transactional visits the question doesn’t exist.
It may seem simple from your perspective, but charging per visit in the web3 fashion has real sustainability questions we need to address, and crypto bros really want us to just not worry about it.
I have a friend from college who works for a legitimate company that has a legitimate use for blockchain technology where it does actually seem to work pretty well. It's not a currency, there's no zero-trust model (instead, it's used for verifying very large datasets that are used by multiple companies/entities). I think there is some legitimate use for this type of tech, but currency is probably not one of them, and they're far more limited in practicality than what would be suggested by all the SV money being thrown into them.
If it's not zero trust then why isn't it just a database?
As soon as you have a trust model, "blockchain" goes out the window as a good answer.
Well, it technically meets the zero-trust definition, but it's not a core concern because it's entirely privately controlled by cooperative entities. It seems to be functioning more or less as a distributed verification database (the datasets are massive genetic sequences or something)
Serious question: What problems do you feel blockchains solves? Just non-governmental currency? I've found another use case that isn't blockchain for blockchain's sake.
Also, I don't follow Eth but are proof-of-stake pools prohibited? Can one address stake more than X (1?) Eth?
This has been my question for a long time.
Blockchain seems to have been introduced as a solution in search of a problem. Then it turned into a buzzword (I mean my dentist was talking to me about blockchain a week ago since she knows I am in tech) that is (was?) being applied to random things without being asked what are we solving for.
The technology for blockchain is interesting, but there are so few actual use cases that a blockchain actually does anything useful and even those few use cases you need to make sure there is incentive for it to be distributed enough.
What problem does Mastodon solve? Just non-Twitter shortform social networking? What about Diaspora, PeerTube, etc?
Not being beholden to a central authority (whether that authority be Twitter, PayPal, or the US government) is intrinsically valuable to a lot of people. Blockchains are just a convenient and proven way of enabling that sort of independence.
Granted, decentralization is a bit of a niche, and the cryptocurrency gold rush has made it way more mainstream than it has any right to be at this point in time given its drawbacks. But that doesn't mean it's not valuable.
As for blockchain specifically: yes, decentralized payments seems to be the primary use case. But once you have a decentralized payments system, that enables the creation of a whole bunch of other decentralized applications that would not have otherwise been possible. That's why most "blockchain" projects start with a currency and then build from there: it's hard to build decentralized cloud storage[1] or decentralized DNS[2][3] without first having a decentralized way to pay for those services.
[1]: https://sia.tech/
[2]: https://www.namecoin.org/
[3]: https://handshake.org/
The problem is that most use-cases for blockchain require being beholden to a central authority anyway, because a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link, and it’s either impossible or prohibitively inefficient to also run distributed applications that interact with the blockchain.
I think anyone who’s trying to achieve trustlessness by introducing more complexity into software is running a fools’ errand. Make simple, auditable systems.
Uh... no? What single, central authority are you beholden to when you transact using Bitcoin?
"Lots of mining is centralized in large pools." or "lots of people choose to buy their Bitcoin through Coinbase" is not anywhere near the same level of dependence on a central authority as "PayPal can freeze my account at any time and I'm SOL". It's like claiming the internet is a centralized system because AWS exists.
If most of the internet is on the AWS that is a pretty understandable argument, no? Mt. Gox was responsible for 70% of Bitcoin transactions at its peak.
Most buy coins through exchanges, via fiat as an intermediary. They upload a driver's license which the intermediary keeps on file for KYC purposes.
If Bitcoin or cryptocurrency in general is supposed to decentralize finance how is it going to attain that goal if "doing it properly" requires installing a miner or exchanging cash for a flash drive in a Walmart parking lot? We're talking about the typical person globally whose conception of the internet might just be Facebook.
No, it’s like claiming the internet is centralized because google exists, except the alternative to things like coinbase is way more difficult to use than alternatives to big search engines. It’s a pretty valid argument
There are working pools on Ethereum's proof-of-stake. Each validator node is 32 ETH but the pool can run multiple validators, and give people a way to deposit smaller amounts.
Do you have any explanations of proof of stake? I've tried to read https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/consensus-mechanisms... and https://arxiv.org/pdf/2003.03052.pdf but I feel they're intentionally obfuscated. I understand proof of work very well.
I tried reading the Tezos proof-of-stake scheme [0], but it seems like it has some very obvious holes that leave security gaps wide open (namely, once you get to somewhere around 50%, probably less, you can completely predict and control the PRNG outputs, giving you full capture of the network), which makes me feel like I still don't quite understand it.
I won't go into whether it's exclusionary or not. That depends on your economic viewpoint. Personally, I think they're about the same -- those with the wealth control the network.
And they've consistently been pushing back The Merge's launch date less than a month than the go-to date. I remember when they wanted to launch it in April 2022. And then May. And then June [1].
[0] https://tezos.gitlab.io/active/proof_of_stake.html [1] https://eips.ethereum.org/EIPS/eip-4345
Former protocol developer for Tezos here. Once you get to 33% of the stake you can stop the chain, so the idea that you could control the RNG at 50% isn’t that scary by comparison.
You can only influence the RNG if you go last. That is to say, you could not completely predict or control the RNG unless you control 100% of the stake. At 50% of the stake, you go last 50% of the time, and even when you go last you don't have the ability to fully control the RNG (although you could do a pretty good job at 50%, at substantial expense to yourself).
The only means anyone has of influencing the RNG is by not revealing their random contribution, which they're punished for by losing their staking rewards. (The original tezos whitepaper had a higher penalty, I believe you forfeit an additional "safety bond", but I don't know if that made it into the implementation.) The hope is that incentives like these are enough to discourage that behavior. All cryptocurrencies depend on incentives for security, in part for cases like these.
But this is a particularly bad case where someone with a sub-33% stake could attack the chain. Fortunately, at <33% control of the stake, the damage you could cause from that attack is small and the attack would be very expensive, so it’s not considered a major problem. I think the worst you could do is censor some transactions for a time, and deprive some others of their staking rewards.
(Although I was a protocol developer, I never worked on anything related to this, so don't take my word as gospel.)
> It is less exclusionary than proof of work
It is not as permissionless as PoW. Anybody can mine a GPU mineable coin, but to stake you need to find existing owners willing to sell you enough coins to stake with.
This reflects the fact that PoW is also a distribution method in addition to a consensus method, while PoS is only the latter.
Are you not doing the same thing that the author is doing? The author has a bias against blockchain, sees blockchain proponents making a poor argument, and that reinforces their bias against blockchains.
You have a bias seemingly in favor of blockchains, you see a blockchain critic making a poor argument, and that reinforces your belief in blockchains.
I think the linked post makes good points (e.g. git and blockchains are related but not broadly comparable) wrapped up in a lot of unnecessary opinion.
Surely the rational approach is to just discount bad arguments, not to treat them as evidence to reinforce the opposite position.
Also apart from Ethereum switch to PoS planned soon (hopefully), there is a lot of PoS blockchains in production today. Cosmos (ATOM) [0], for instance, is live since march 2019 and going very well, spawning a whole ecosystem of PoS blockcains using Cosmos SDK [1]
[0] https://cosmos.network/
[1] https://www.coingecko.com/en/categories/cosmos-ecosystem
“Less exclusionary than proof of work” doesn’t mean “is not exclusionary”.
> one of the things that fuel my believe on blockchain is how many the arguments against it are falacies and/or full of ignorance like this one.
I’m not sure this is an argument really.
I partly disagree with the author, but glancing at other articles of the same blog, it seems that nuance is often left out.
On technical merits, the first point is kind of invalid. You can't rewrite history in git without changing commit IDs. And the two others are the same point: git doesn't have a distributed consesus mechanism.
It would be very easy to build one, though, which gets git close enough for comparison purposes. And the "blockchain" term only hints at the merkle tree aspect.
Now, on rebranding: while I feel the comparison apt, it shouldn't be used as a successfull example of blockchain technology. It can to an extent, but blockchain means something different in people's mind. I'd still do the comparison while pointing out the difference.
And that's something I often do, when explaining how either works.
And to me, blockchain (including consensus) is still a mathematical curiosity that hasn't proven useful yet. I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.
> git doesn't have a distributed consesus mechanism
It doesn't have an automated distributed consensus mechanism.
It does have a manual distributed consensus mechanism; that's basically how every popular open source project works. You fork the project, make a change, and if your commit is an improvement over the project you forked people will be inclined to merge it into their repositories, eventually arriving at a consensus.
In practice this process is often more centralized than distributed, but it doesn't have to be. If you want to 51% attack a popular repo, all you have to do is make constant, quality improvements to the project over time, and eventually your fork may well become the dominant one even over the objections of any centralized authorities.
The argument that git can have consensus if people just agree to isn’t compelling in this context. The distinction here is that with blockchain, consensus is mandatory and has a specific technical meaning. With git, consensus is optional at best, achieved only manually, is easily broken by rogue activity, and the word consensus might not even mean the same thing and can change over time in the case of git - there are lots of examples of original projects or forks that have claimed to be the one and only place people should concentrate their efforts, only to get abandoned in favor of something else later.
> You can't rewrite history in git without changing commit IDs.
But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility. Not inherently.
This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have.
To say that you can't rewrite history without changing commit IDs is like saying you can't prove a certain point without using the letter 'e'. Like… why are you even bringing up such a restriction?
> but blockchain means something different in people's mind
Right. Blockchain means "distributed ledger", which git is not. To say that git is one too is a technicality on the level of saying it's "wrong" to say "have your cake and eat it too", when it's actually "eat your cake and have it too".
It's not wrong, just not meaningful.
The only reason, in my opinion, to talk about the similarities between "blockchain" and git is to do exactly what this article does: to remove confusion in the mind of the listener that they are in any way meaningfully similar.
> I've seen some interesting PoW proposals, like mail anti-spam, or rate limiting/captcha.
Maybe in the future you'll mine the next cryptocurrency by proof of work in the form of "help this self-driving car that's stuck at an intersection it doesn't understand".
> But "not changing commit IDs" isn't part of git's utility.
How is that not a useful, intentional feature of git? Commit IDs (hashes) ensure DAG consistency as well as many other benefits. Linus explains it better than I could[0].
> This is easily proven by the fact that people do rewrite history. Because it's a useful feature to have.
It depends on the context. Try to rewrite commits in a PR for any public repo and see whether others agree it's a useful feature.
Anyway, I think you're proving the counter point: this is a shared feature of git and block chains - you know when history has been rewritten because the hashes changed.
[0] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XpnKHJAok8&t=56m16s
Sure, it's a hiccup to rewrite history. But in Bitcoin it's 100% fundamental breakage. There's a difference.
I think you didn't take the parent's suggestion to make a PR seriously enough.
It is closer than you seem to think: rewriting history in a public, published repository will wreak havoc across contributors'clones. Contributors will have to contact upstream and ask if there was a reason, if it was intentional, or a malicious event. Especially if the root commit was changed, in which case you can't even attempt to merge repositories.
I don't really see why you couldn't backtrack the bitcoin blockchain, pretend an arbitrary block is the most recent one, and start your fork from there. The difference is,is that if you want to include some subsequent blocks, you will have to provide some proofs of work.
In both cases, some convincing is needed to move the consensus base to a new one.
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-Tools-Rewriting-History
In the important note:
> One of the cardinal rules of Git is that, since so much work is local within your clone, you have a great deal of freedom to rewrite your history locally. However, once you push your work, it is a different story entirely, and you should consider pushed work as final unless you have good reason to change it. In short, you should avoid pushing your work until you’re happy with it and ready to share it with the rest of the world.
Also:
> it can rewrite huge swaths of your history, so you probably shouldn’t use it unless your project isn’t yet public and other people haven’t based work off the commits you’re about to rewrite
This is git 101. People can still choose to follow your rewritten history fork though, and it's also the case for bitcoin.
I replied to most things here in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32443447
In git it's a hiccup if upstream does it. But it does work. For buttcoin you get the DAO split.
It’s important for audit ability and security that people can’t change commit ids from under you. If you run a security review of commit A and decide it’s safe to automatically deploy on your production systems, you’re only doing that because you know commit A can’t be changed.
Yes, it's a hiccup. But not fundamental because it is actually possible to do it.
A company can have a flag day, and keep a mapping of old hash to new hash for audit purposes.
I'm not saying do it willy nilly, but repos are fundamentally below the humans and any needs they have. Blockchains say code is law, and a fork (see eth DAO) is a complete clusterfuck.
Scrubbing some PII you legally need to remove from the corp codebase? Some poking, yes, but not a disaster.
Whereas they say there's plenty of child porn in the bitcoin Blockchain.
FWIW I've used the "Git is a blockchain" argument to argue in the opposite direction: i.e. that blockchains are not anything new or innovative.
I don't think the argument has to go both ways. Blockchains can be indebted to some prior art in distributed version control systems without being similar or identical to them, and without those DVCSs being blockchains.
the innovation with blockchain is that it adds a feature that git doesn't have, namely to make it expensive to add new entries and very difficult to fork the chain.
on the other hand, i believe blockchain is used for many projects that don't need that new feature, where something similar to git would suffice. in other words a lot of blockchain uses are not innovative in that they don't enable something that would not have been possible without blockchain.
Blockchain for blockchain's sake, in other words...
part of the problem is that many people don't know that it is possible to build an immutable history without blockchain. that's why compariosns to git, like this one are useful.
another part is that there are no general purpose libraries that are decoupled from file based version control (that i am aware of) that could be used. so people turn to blockchain because it is the most obvious thing to use. just like people use kubernetes even when in many cases that is overkill and unnecessary to solve a particular problem.
I think this is a much better way to take it. Blockchains are super useful. They solve problems in distributed systems very elegantly and effectivly.
It is the consensus part of a crypto currency blockchains that is the part I usually have objections to. I have increasingly started to realize that it is surprisingly few situations you want such a rigid type of consensus and consistency. In computer systems you usually want something much more efficient and in human systems, in the places where you really need consensus it is usually very required to have systems like our institutions that are filled with checks and balances for fault tolerance and fairness. And in most places you just have to realize consensus in a society is really hard and reeeeally slow - and I don't know if that is possible to change.
Is anybody really calling git a blockchain? I have only seen this equivalence made by critics saying "we don't need blockchain, we already have git!"
There's a lot of nitpicking around this topic. Mainly because "a chain of blocks" only describes the Merkle Tree part of "blockchain technologies".
I'd personally argue that "blockchain" is a bad way to describe immutable, decentralized ledgers, because it inherently leaves out some of the defining aspects.
However, the term has been way too established for a long time now, so the whole discussion is moot.
No, but I have heard blockchain boosters say that blockchains are "kind of like Git!" Of course, "kind of like" doesn't mean anything like "equivalent", but it draws upon something established to legitimise something that's not.
Fossil has a pretty thoughtful analysis[0] about whether it fits the definition of a blockchain. If you're interested in those semantics, it's far better than the OP's treatment, IMHO.
[0]: https://www3.fossil-scm.org/site.cgi/doc/2022-05-28/www/bloc...
> Calling git a blockchain to rebrand bad tech
Does he have any examples of people making this claim? Otherwise the post just seems like a lengthy strawman (or what's the name for an argument based on defeating a made-up statement?).
The problem is not the blockchain, but the cryptocurrency with it's harmful consent-mechanism, also all the scams happening with it. These are two different technologies. And only one of them is highly problematic.
85% of email is spam[1], but the remaining 15% is really useful and helps run the world.
same in everything: probably 85% of songs i don't like, 10% i'll listen to, 5% is amazing.
85% of crypto is nonsense, 10% is interesting, 5% transformative.
i find it a useful mental model to not be annoyed at everything i encounter. if theres tons of people saying taylor swift is great theres probably one song im gonna like. apply it to crypto too.
[1] https://donotpay.com/learn/spam-accounts-for-approximately-p...
The thing about crypto is that 50% of crypto is outright scams, 30% is nonsense, 15% is interesting academically but completely useless, and 5% is transformative in a very narrow particular set of circumstances that very few people actually have.
And I'm being generous.
You are describing the google app store as well.
The Google app store has spam and not spam. Crypto only has spam.
A perfunctory search shows there are over 20,000* cryptocurrencies in 2022. Saying that 3,000 (15%) are interesting|transformative is a bit of a stretch, especially given that over 19,990 of cryptocurrencies are in complete obscurity for the general public: if a coin is interesting|transformative in a forest with no one to hodl it, how interesting/transformative is it really? Sturgeon's law should probably be amended with "90% percent of Sturgeon's law examples are crud".
* "As of July 2022, there are 20,268 cryptocurrencies in existence. However, not all cryptocurrencies are active or valuable. Discounting many “dead” cryptos leaves only around 10,953 active cryptocurrencies." [1] — 15% of active cryptocurrencies in 2022 would be ~1,643, the point still stands.
[1] https://explodingtopics.com/blog/number-of-cryptocurrencies
I think those are great examples of the Pareto Principle [1]. It says 80% of the results come from 20% of the causes. Your examples could be generalized to an extension principle: 30% of the consequences come from 15% of the causes, and 50% come from a separate 5% of the causes.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
They are applying Sturgeon's law [1] ("ninety-percent of everything is crud"), not Pareto, common misconception.
Pareto would be that 80% of all crypto transactions are done by 20% of all the cryptocurrencies (given 10,953 active cryptos, that would be 2,190), which also doesn't stand since ~99% of all crypto transactions are done by the top 10 cryptos (BTC, ETH, etc.), textbook oligopoly [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon%27s_law
[2] https://coinmarketcap.com/charts https://www.statista.com/statistics/1269302/crypto-market-sh...
There's 20'000 cryptocurrencies, and zero actual use cases outside of crimes like tax evasion, money laundering, and buying illegal things. So your percentages are a bit off, and should be more like 0.
I wouldn't even classify buying illegal drugs on the internet, which is the most moral of all cryptocurrency use cases, as "transformative".
Crypto scams aren't a problem unique to crypto. There are plenty of fiat scams, too.
There is a big difference between nearly 100% scam, and something like 1% scam. And most of the scames happening with non-crypto are not exclusive to the currency, they would happen with crypto too, if it had wider usage.
The spam email and phone calls I get are nearly 100% scam.
Scams are everywhere, though. Millions are scammed through shitty toolbars, and personal data is brokered to the highest bidders. Cryptocurrency has issues, but generalizing it as the problem isn't necessarily constructive to society.
Then where are the legit cryptocurrency use cases? At the moment it seems, except people playing around for the sake of playing, every other usage is just scamming the fools or scamming the state. And while other cases were tested, they failed.
Managing (digital) assets/values in a permissionless, self-sovereign way.
There is no alternative as far as I know.
In a self-contained fantasy economy with no attachment points to the real world, this might be compelling. In practice, the rest of the economy, society, etc. doesn't operate in a self-sovereign way, and neither do you.
It's not much different than the problem of micronations[1]. Exciting as they are for D&Ders of a sort, they aren't real nations for the simple reason that they lack a defining feature of a nation (among others): that everyone else think they're a nation.
Cryptocurrency is perhaps not as extreme; a reasonably large number of people appear to be persuaded that units of cryptocurrency are a real asset, and some begrudging convertibility into other kinds of assets (a defining feature of a currency) does exist. Still, it suffers from a similar problem, in kind if not in degree.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation
> In practice
This is the difficult part for me with Cryptocurrency. Sure, the idea is cool, but I can't really use crypto with any of the services I use except for maybe my VPS provider or other technical services (which requires me to provide an email address anyway). I'd love to hear about mainstream services allowing financial transactions through cryptocurrency. Pornhub is the only mainstream/non-tech service I can think of.
The only practical use for me with cryptocurrency would be to convert it back into USD eventually.
I suppose crypto enthusiasts would argue that this is just a matter of not having reached the tipping point for mass adoption yet (as with electric vehicles, for instance). However, I've heard that since the late 2000s.
I paid my rent in BTC for about a year, and have bought food/alcohol with it directly.
I suspect those may have been edge cases though.
Whoa! That is awesome! I wish that was an option where I live in the US. Even if I didn't use it, that would be nice to just have other options.
Because there are still very rough edges to smooth out. So it works only for niches. Kinda like online shopping in the 90s
Same can be said about your local classroom, universities, and even companies. There's different types of currencies (whether it's your grades or performance reviews), cryptocurrency is no different than the value that is exchanged between two members of the community.
Let's not assume that it's going to be the end-all and be-all, because it's not. It's a medium of exchange between members of a community (BTC, ETH, Doge, or whatever).
The common misconception that "oh crypto is such a scam" type of group is that they assume this is designed to replace something else. It's not a replacement of any kind, it's a tool for a medium of exchange between communities.
Buzzwordy, what exactly do you mean. Management of digital assets via NFT is just fraud imho.
Transferring and holding. This only requires a private key. NFTs are not needed for this.
Smells like law-evasion, so scam the state. What assets/values do you need to manage? What does permissionless means in that case? And why is crypto superior to existing solutions? And no, self-sovereignity is not an acceptable answer here, unless you life in north-korea.
Absolutely not. My country wants to know what assets (or waht they're worth to be more precise) I have end of Year, so I declare it. I have no problems with that. Good living conditions have a price so I happily pay my cut. If I don't like it, I'll leave.
Permissionless means that there is no central entity needed to observe or even approve my actions with my assets.
What existing solutions?
I strongly disagree, self-soverignty is a personal decision. It doesn't matter in what country you live.
To put it bluntly: fuck the state.
I have a rule that I do not take any discussion about how "some people are saying!" seriously unless the discussion includes direct links to people saying that.
I didn’t see a single link in the article to the pro-blockchain crowd trying to claim Git is blockchain. It’s almost always the anti-blockchain crowd that says “blockchains don’t add anything new, it’s just Git with scams on it”.
I suspect this person has misinterpreted the messaging they’re hearing and misunderstood the position being taken.
It’s also unclear if they don’t know how to spell Ethereum or if they’re weakening their argument by purposely misspelling it.
This is a somewhat poorly worded title. At first glance it sounds like git is the bad technology that’s being rebranded, which made absolutely no sense. I had to read the article to realize that some blockchain people are claiming git as a kind of blockchain. But that’s not really a rebranding for blockchains, either. The title aside, the actual blog post makes some good points and is worth a read.
Git is a kind of block chain IMHO.
It annoys me that crypto bros think that bitcoin was the first use of bloody cks of data with hashing for an immutable ledger. Its common practice in many industries. Inc the one I work in (lotteries)
Bitcoin is a clever trick. But it's underlying tech is not anything radically new. It's just using some best practices for a perticular use case.
"git is a blockchain" is a meme that is exclusively pushed by anti-crypto activists because it provides the basis for their "no there there" talking point (note the popularity of this phrase in particular).
Evidence: https://twitter.com/smdiehl/status/1499637399751692288
The entire article is arguing a strawman.
A better suited discussion is whether fossil, an alternative to git, is a blockchain: https://fossil-scm.org/home/doc/trunk/www/blockchain.md
Using Git as a 'blockchain' was a core part of my experimental essay on NFTs: https://github.com/wcerfgba/moneylab-nft-essay
What "crypto people" are claiming Git is a blockchain?
I usually see that claim from people trying to claim blockchains are nothing new, as in "git has existed forever, blockchains are dumb."
This is a super low-quality article.
possible a scalable blockchain might provide 'distributed' platforms with novel ways of income that doesn't involve selling your data or showing adverts
reddit/moons thing is interesting as a kind of experiment of all issues there and problems to solve
im not convinced yet that the result will be something good, a kind of hypercapitalistic zero-sum internet rat race
I am not sure that git needs to be rebranded - nor do I believe that calling it a blockchain will help that effort in any way.
Good day sir.
Sounds like you agree with the article?
Indeed.
My favorite blockchain is Perforce.
Should linked lists also be renamed to blockchains?
Only if the links are chains.
(i.e. once you've made a link between two blocks it can't be changed)
The C++ `const` keyword makes for a blockchain.
Merkle tree*