Blockchain: Next tech juggernaut?
-
Reading this book about Blockchain technologies and it is convincing me that blockchain is a juggernaut (unstoppable). Blockchain: A Practical Guide to Developing Business, Law, and Technology Solutions [^] It really is going to be used everywhere (identity, finance, healthcare, file storage/sharing, supply chain). If you check out Hyperledger Projects - Hyperledger[^] you will see that there are major blockchain projects being backed by major corps (SawTooth = Intel, Fabric = IBM) And everyone has heard of Bitcoin but Ripple (Company - Learn About Ripple)[^] is getting huge and backed by large corps. A nice summary of the technology:
Blockchain book said:
Simply put, a blockchain is a database encompassing a physical chain of fixed-length blocks that include 1 to N transactions, where each transaction added to a new block is validated and then inserted into the block.
The concepts behind the blockchain really are interesting.
Jokes and interesting facts aside, we shouldn't gloss over the fact that it almost doesn't solve anything. Pragmatically speaking, it's just a persistent data-store. Noteworthy characteristics are: - it's highly distributed - data authenticity is expected to be safe, as long as no bad actor owns ~40% of the distributed parts - it's not high volume - it's not high capacity As a result, it's an expert-system than only works when you have a lot of users and can't trust anyone, and these need to be your primary concerns. The only profitable market that has these requirements is the illicit drug trade. And mayhaps cyber warfare, in 2 or 3 years time. In all other circumstances where you could apply a distributed design, you're better of with a trust-based system (= certificates) and support for high volume and capacity. This is like data-mining all over again. People who don't understand profit and the practical application of software are writing books and giving seminaries about things that no-one will pay for. Marketing to idiots doesn't count, because that's short-term only. Idiots don't have a long attention span. To be honest, It just annoys me that enterprise is faking interest again and fanning the flames. Intel and IBM have a track record of publicly investing during hype cycles and then abandoning those projects when their stakeholders stop noticing. I'm still pissed-off about Edison.
-
That link you described (the human factor) is present in all currencies; it is even there for gold. Doesn't make crypto's more secure or insecure than gold. Your argument is therefore m00t.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
True the weakness is in other systems as well , but the point is that having a more supposedly 'secure' system is irrelevant if there are other weaker links! Plus the big downside of Blockchain on a large scale is the sheer cost of all those transactions in monetary as well as infrastructure and environmental costs. Without some other technology break through Blockchains are going to be problematic for most applications.
-
jschell wrote:
Nothing is used everywhere.
How about atoms? I believe they are even used in the most distant suns and at the far edges of the Universe. :rolleyes:
jschell wrote:
So certainly not an unbiased view of the potential.
And yet, where is there an unbiased view of anything? Many people like chocolate and yet other fools do not. And people who sell chocolate like it even if they don't eat it themselves, all because they are trying to make money. I have yet to find the human who has an unbiased view of anything. Whether they know it or not. :rolleyes: But, that's just my biased opinion. :laugh: I get your points though. I know there will be vast challenges for blockchain tech but that is what struck me the most -- the huge corps who are getting behind it. I'm not really _for_ blockchain since there are some inherent dangers in it. I just think the technology behind it (merkle trees) is interesting and since I don't like large systems I find it to be interesting that so many large companies are backing it so strongly already.
raddevus wrote:
And yet, where is there an unbiased view of anything?
You get an unbiased view when people share theoretical implications and practical applications. You get a biased view when people are sharing an emotional stance about something. Some people employ both and expect you to discern between the two. Some people only employ the latter.
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
Since it's a cryptocurrency I assume they use blockchain as well.
Their own hand-rolled version, yes.
Sander Rossel wrote:
I get it, blockchain is great and awesome and super secure, but it's still "just" technology and I simply refuse to believe any technology is "unhackable" no matter how secure it is.
Believing is done in church, as a programmer we do not believe but research. The hashcode itself would be hard to crack; please explain how you would replace the lists of hashcodes on multiple computers that you have no acces to? Write one, and you'll get a much better idea what you are talking about. Start here: A blockchain in 200 lines of code – Lauri Hartikka – Medium[^]
Sander Rossel wrote:
However, for most practical uses it's not security that's the issue, but, as said, the mining of hashes :)
That's not an issue; if mining was cheap, then BC would not work. It takes less resources than getting gold out of the ground and is a lot less polluting.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
please explain how you would replace the lists of hashcodes on multiple computers that you have no acces to?
Please explain how anything is hacked? I don't know, I'm not a hacker, but it still happens a lot!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Write one, and you'll get a much better idea what you are talking about. Start here: A blockchain in 200 lines of code – Lauri Hartikka – Medium[^]
Interesting. I found this video[^] to explain the blockchain concept pretty well.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It takes less resources than getting gold out of the ground and is a lot less polluting.
Is that so?[^] This article also has an awesome cat gif[^] :D And then there's this: Bitcoin Mining is more Polluting than Gold Mining - Digiconomist[^]
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
While I really like the idea of blockchain I do think it's being hyped a lot. Sure, some bigger companies are hopping on the hype train, but I don't see a lot of value for regular businesses. It's not as secure as they make you believe. BitCoin (and blockchain) can be hacked or tampered with or whatever it is they do. More importantly, it's really expensive to generate those hashes (or nonces to be precise)! The fact that mining them can make you money says enough. It's like saying "we need ID's for our database, let's ask consumers to rent us their computers so we can get those ID's!" Not going to happen for about 99.999999% of the businesses. Maybe I just don't know blockchain well enough, but I know a lot of people talking about blockchain, but no one who's actually doing it.
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander Rossel wrote:
It's not as secure as they make you believe.
This statement is not simple to back. There are several aspects of security. If we talk about security on the fabric level, yes it is that secure, specially if we talk about public and widely adopted network (i.e. Ethereum, Bitcoin). But then there is: User Security: As with any system your credentials are as secure as you make it. If are not be careful with your private/public key pair, it will get hacked and your funds will be stolen or someone will generate a transaction on your behalf. Provider Security: Some providers (like exchanges) store your private/public key pair in an insecure manner, it can be hacked and your credentials may be exposed. Smart Contract Security: They are nothing more than programmable logic that runs on a blockchain's fabric. If it's not well programmed it can expose security flaw. For example if you program a smart contract that transfer a custom token you developed and you don't take measures to verify the owner's identity, that flaw can be exploited. In any of those cases, the security of the fabric is not broken and you can actually see things happening (it's completely auditable), despite not being able to do anything about it.
Sander Rossel wrote:
More importantly, it's really expensive to generate those hashes (or nonces to be precise)!
That's not true at best, because you're generalizing. First, it's only as expensive as the hashing difficulty level of the network (it can be on purpose, like bitcoin)l Second, this is specific for Proof of Work consensus algorithm. We have many more, to name a few: Proof of Authority, Proof of Stake, Proof of Elapsed Time... All of those require very, very little computational power (for example the an Azure B1sm VM can be a Proof of authority blockchain minter (not miner), which is actually a very cheap and small machine)
Sander Rossel wrote:
Not going to happen for about 99.999999% of the businesses.
That's shortsighted, with different types of consensus algorithms, we don't need that much computational power. I have been working on blockchain projects for big corps for a while now and I got exposed to many types of business that not only are using it, but are actually expanding its usage. Sometimes, specially on private networks, and inter company business, the actual costs are
-
Jokes and interesting facts aside, we shouldn't gloss over the fact that it almost doesn't solve anything. Pragmatically speaking, it's just a persistent data-store. Noteworthy characteristics are: - it's highly distributed - data authenticity is expected to be safe, as long as no bad actor owns ~40% of the distributed parts - it's not high volume - it's not high capacity As a result, it's an expert-system than only works when you have a lot of users and can't trust anyone, and these need to be your primary concerns. The only profitable market that has these requirements is the illicit drug trade. And mayhaps cyber warfare, in 2 or 3 years time. In all other circumstances where you could apply a distributed design, you're better of with a trust-based system (= certificates) and support for high volume and capacity. This is like data-mining all over again. People who don't understand profit and the practical application of software are writing books and giving seminaries about things that no-one will pay for. Marketing to idiots doesn't count, because that's short-term only. Idiots don't have a long attention span. To be honest, It just annoys me that enterprise is faking interest again and fanning the flames. Intel and IBM have a track record of publicly investing during hype cycles and then abandoning those projects when their stakeholders stop noticing. I'm still pissed-off about Edison.
Great points all around. It is worth noting that it has proven to be useful for inventory tracking and it's nature lends itself to cross-company resource tracking, making the possibilities for ERP solutions interesting.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity." - Hanlon's Razor
-
Sander Rossel wrote:
It's not as secure as they make you believe.
This statement is not simple to back. There are several aspects of security. If we talk about security on the fabric level, yes it is that secure, specially if we talk about public and widely adopted network (i.e. Ethereum, Bitcoin). But then there is: User Security: As with any system your credentials are as secure as you make it. If are not be careful with your private/public key pair, it will get hacked and your funds will be stolen or someone will generate a transaction on your behalf. Provider Security: Some providers (like exchanges) store your private/public key pair in an insecure manner, it can be hacked and your credentials may be exposed. Smart Contract Security: They are nothing more than programmable logic that runs on a blockchain's fabric. If it's not well programmed it can expose security flaw. For example if you program a smart contract that transfer a custom token you developed and you don't take measures to verify the owner's identity, that flaw can be exploited. In any of those cases, the security of the fabric is not broken and you can actually see things happening (it's completely auditable), despite not being able to do anything about it.
Sander Rossel wrote:
More importantly, it's really expensive to generate those hashes (or nonces to be precise)!
That's not true at best, because you're generalizing. First, it's only as expensive as the hashing difficulty level of the network (it can be on purpose, like bitcoin)l Second, this is specific for Proof of Work consensus algorithm. We have many more, to name a few: Proof of Authority, Proof of Stake, Proof of Elapsed Time... All of those require very, very little computational power (for example the an Azure B1sm VM can be a Proof of authority blockchain minter (not miner), which is actually a very cheap and small machine)
Sander Rossel wrote:
Not going to happen for about 99.999999% of the businesses.
That's shortsighted, with different types of consensus algorithms, we don't need that much computational power. I have been working on blockchain projects for big corps for a while now and I got exposed to many types of business that not only are using it, but are actually expanding its usage. Sometimes, specially on private networks, and inter company business, the actual costs are
I guess for me blockchain == Bitcoin, while I know that's not true. Your post simply proves that I don't know jack shit about the subject except the general idea and the Bitcoin implementation :laugh:
Fabio Franco wrote:
I have been working on blockchain projects for big corps for a while now and I got exposed to many types of business that not only are using it, but are actually expanding its usage.
Can you tell a bit about the use cases?
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
-
Jokes and interesting facts aside, we shouldn't gloss over the fact that it almost doesn't solve anything. Pragmatically speaking, it's just a persistent data-store. Noteworthy characteristics are: - it's highly distributed - data authenticity is expected to be safe, as long as no bad actor owns ~40% of the distributed parts - it's not high volume - it's not high capacity As a result, it's an expert-system than only works when you have a lot of users and can't trust anyone, and these need to be your primary concerns. The only profitable market that has these requirements is the illicit drug trade. And mayhaps cyber warfare, in 2 or 3 years time. In all other circumstances where you could apply a distributed design, you're better of with a trust-based system (= certificates) and support for high volume and capacity. This is like data-mining all over again. People who don't understand profit and the practical application of software are writing books and giving seminaries about things that no-one will pay for. Marketing to idiots doesn't count, because that's short-term only. Idiots don't have a long attention span. To be honest, It just annoys me that enterprise is faking interest again and fanning the flames. Intel and IBM have a track record of publicly investing during hype cycles and then abandoning those projects when their stakeholders stop noticing. I'm still pissed-off about Edison.
KBZX5000 wrote:
I'm still pissed-off about Edison.
I know. That was a crazy situation. I actually won an Edison in a contest and when I got it I thought it was too complicated (for what it was). What I mean is that if I wanted that level of a thing -- running Linux -- then I'd just go with the RPi. and if I didn't want something running Linux then I'd just go with a basic Arduino. It was as if they created this thing without looking around at all. It was crazy they just killed it like that though. People were just starting to use it a bit.
-
While I really like the idea of blockchain I do think it's being hyped a lot. Sure, some bigger companies are hopping on the hype train, but I don't see a lot of value for regular businesses. It's not as secure as they make you believe. BitCoin (and blockchain) can be hacked or tampered with or whatever it is they do. More importantly, it's really expensive to generate those hashes (or nonces to be precise)! The fact that mining them can make you money says enough. It's like saying "we need ID's for our database, let's ask consumers to rent us their computers so we can get those ID's!" Not going to happen for about 99.999999% of the businesses. Maybe I just don't know blockchain well enough, but I know a lot of people talking about blockchain, but no one who's actually doing it.
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Also it is going to hit a wall sooner or later. The more transactions, the longer the chain is. By ten years, it is going to consume a whole town's electricity just to handle one new transaction. I don't know what kind of book that the thread starter read, but I will never hop unto the ship.
-
Reading this book about Blockchain technologies and it is convincing me that blockchain is a juggernaut (unstoppable). Blockchain: A Practical Guide to Developing Business, Law, and Technology Solutions [^] It really is going to be used everywhere (identity, finance, healthcare, file storage/sharing, supply chain). If you check out Hyperledger Projects - Hyperledger[^] you will see that there are major blockchain projects being backed by major corps (SawTooth = Intel, Fabric = IBM) And everyone has heard of Bitcoin but Ripple (Company - Learn About Ripple)[^] is getting huge and backed by large corps. A nice summary of the technology:
Blockchain book said:
Simply put, a blockchain is a database encompassing a physical chain of fixed-length blocks that include 1 to N transactions, where each transaction added to a new block is validated and then inserted into the block.
The concepts behind the blockchain really are interesting.
-
MKJCP wrote:
Someone drank the Kool-Aid!
*glug* delicious :rolleyes:
MKJCP wrote:
A Practical guide
It simply means that there are code examples to follow. Do you know about the tech behind blockchain? Merkle trees? Quite interesting. How might they be used. That's the interesting part. And seeing how the BC is implemented on top of that. Quite interesting.
-
MKJCP wrote:
Someone drank the Kool-Aid!
*glug* delicious :rolleyes:
MKJCP wrote:
A Practical guide
It simply means that there are code examples to follow. Do you know about the tech behind blockchain? Merkle trees? Quite interesting. How might they be used. That's the interesting part. And seeing how the BC is implemented on top of that. Quite interesting.
-
I agree, it is quite interesting. If it is to be a tech juggernaut the world may need a couple dozen reactors and some tons of uranium. I hear implementation gobbles electricity like Joey Chestnut eats hot dogs.
-
I don't have the resources, but governments do.
-
True the weakness is in other systems as well , but the point is that having a more supposedly 'secure' system is irrelevant if there are other weaker links! Plus the big downside of Blockchain on a large scale is the sheer cost of all those transactions in monetary as well as infrastructure and environmental costs. Without some other technology break through Blockchains are going to be problematic for most applications.
Bob1000 wrote:
True the weakness is in other systems as well , but the point is that having a more supposedly 'secure' system is irrelevant if there are other weaker links!
It's not; you don't use an unlocked door instead of a locked door simply because your spouse is a "weak link".
Bob1000 wrote:
Plus the big downside of Blockchain on a large scale is the sheer cost of all those transactions in monetary as well as infrastructure and environmental costs.
Monetary costs? Which, if you transact from wallet to wallet? There is none! Environmental cost is another nonsense-argument; it is a lot lower than actual cash.
Bob1000 wrote:
Without some other technology break through Blockchains are going to be problematic for most applications.
That's vague as can be; despite your promise of problematic, it is used. Doesn't look like it is going away either.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
please explain how you would replace the lists of hashcodes on multiple computers that you have no acces to?
Please explain how anything is hacked? I don't know, I'm not a hacker, but it still happens a lot!
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Write one, and you'll get a much better idea what you are talking about. Start here: A blockchain in 200 lines of code – Lauri Hartikka – Medium[^]
Interesting. I found this video[^] to explain the blockchain concept pretty well.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It takes less resources than getting gold out of the ground and is a lot less polluting.
Is that so?[^] This article also has an awesome cat gif[^] :D And then there's this: Bitcoin Mining is more Polluting than Gold Mining - Digiconomist[^]
Best, Sander Continuous Integration, Delivery, and Deployment arrgh.js - Bringing LINQ to JavaScript Object-Oriented Programming in C# Succinctly
Sander Rossel wrote:
Please explain how anything is hacked? I don't know, I'm not a hacker, but it still happens a lot!
How often is SHA256 hacked again?
Sander Rossel wrote:
And then there's this: Bitcoin Mining is more Polluting than Gold Mining - Digiconomist[^]
Aw, come on; BC is generated by using electricity, in some cases even "green". Mining gold means using a lot of environmentally unfriendly chemicals, which are often dumped nearby, polluting the area. There is no way of environmentally friendly gold. Digiconomist is spouting crap :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If they did, they would have used it by now.
To gain what? You think China or Russia are going to deploy a huge tech project to disrupt bitcoin? Why would they care about that?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
If they did, they would have used it by now.
To gain what? You think China or Russia are going to deploy a huge tech project to disrupt bitcoin? Why would they care about that?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
To gain what? You think China or Russia are going to deploy a huge tech project to disrupt bitcoin? Why would they care about that?
No, the US. Where politicians shout it is used for tax-evasion and by criminals and terrorists :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
To gain what? You think China or Russia are going to deploy a huge tech project to disrupt bitcoin? Why would they care about that?
No, the US. Where politicians shout it is used for tax-evasion and by criminals and terrorists :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
So you expect the US to disrupt a private enterprise like bitcoin because they say it is used for tax evasion and crime? So is the internet so why isn't the US shutting that down too? If they wanted to shut it down they'd legislate, no need to do something underhand that might harm their reputation and democracy.
-
So you expect the US to disrupt a private enterprise like bitcoin because they say it is used for tax evasion and crime? So is the internet so why isn't the US shutting that down too? If they wanted to shut it down they'd legislate, no need to do something underhand that might harm their reputation and democracy.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So is the internet so why isn't the US shutting that down too?
Dunno. If someone told Trump that he can shut down something Al Gore invented, he'd probably do so :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
If they wanted to shut it down they'd legislate, no need to do something underhand that might harm their reputation and democracy.
There's no need to shut it down directly; discrediting works well enough. Harming US reputation and democracy is left to the Americans themselves, doesn't look from here like you need help with that.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
