People who keep touting smart contracts as "simplifying contracts" don't understand that litigating contracts is expensive because of human interpretation, not because someone forgot to write something down and get it notarized
-
-
* except for the drugs, the scams, the tax evasion, and payment-blockade-circumvention. I acknowledge that those are valid use case scenarios for bitcoin
Afficher cette discussion -
90% of the people who are dazzled by "crypto" right now absolutely do not understand the core technological premise of any of this shit. It's an interesting innovation with an *extremely limited* ability to actually effect any positive change in the world
Afficher cette discussion -
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Except for, you know, the get-rich-quick bit
-
also the internet drugs, I guess
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
the whole point is to be decentralized though. central server means an institution like a corporation or government can meddle with it
-
she literally doesnt understand the technology, why it was created, or it's purpose. But she can blather on twitter so..
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
isn't the main advantage that you aren't required to trust the owner of a centralized server with blockchain? THAT'S the difference, isn't it?
-
also, the anonymous part. This is the part that mostly has to do with illegal stuff, but being anonymous has legit benefits too.
-
So, blockchain tech offers anonymity and doesn't require trust. Centralized servers can't really offer that. Or am I wrong/missing something?
-
Data cannot be trusted unless an authority can speak to the validity of that data is involved. Blockchain doesn’t provide true anonymity as all of the actors are “known”. Every transaction is “known”. The point is you can lie about a Tx, just not that it occurred.
-
right, you can't deny it occurred, and you can't remove/change it without everyone knowing it. These can't be said for central servers. And the "authority" is the blockchain; when you can assert who did what, when, and know it couldn't be changed later, that's validity.
-
No. The blockchain is not the authority. The "authority" is the party who writes the data. The problem is that data can be suspect and we now know that blockchain can in fact be compromised on the way in and the way out.
-
Only a trusted party can be an authority. Blockchain allows you to obtain consensus. Problem is that consensus is oversold and often unnecessary.
-
@sarahjeong asserted that central servers with version control can solve almost everything blockchain can. I'm asserting that a central server can't solve trusting that data can't be faked, changed, or lied about the way blockchain can. Am I wrong? - 10 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
Easy say after the fact "Blockchain sux because I know how to solve the problem without it" after "Blockchain" came and taught you what the solution was. If "blockchain" inspires people to create solutions without blockchains it would already be a "world transformation".
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
There’s a lot of folks who say that there’s very few problems block chain solves that aren’t already solved with github or an abstraction layer over the top of github. I concur furiously.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
Like Aadhaar?
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
-
Alternatively: Some things not yet solved by some kind of version control hosted on a central server, are being solved by blockchain.
Merci. Twitter en tiendra compte pour améliorer votre fil. SupprimerSupprimer
-
-
- 1 réponse de plus
Nouvelle conversation
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.