Imagine being on the same team as Vladimir Putin. SMH
5 Likes
Art industry is the only one of those that possibly isnât doa. For the rest, a public, distributed, redundant, append-only ledger is an objectively terrible solution.
2 Likes
Believed in FIAT, now sheâs FLAT. Coincidence? Yes, most likely but that wonât bring her back. Might as well crypto đ«°đż
1 Like
Why? And what do you think about carbon credits on a blockchain?
normal citizens getting cash directly from polluting corporations in their country? 
normal citizens individually setting their own price for how much they value clean air? 
Why is look at it form a technical perspective â a blockchain is just a database. A distributed, redundant, append-only database. This solves one problem â where you canât trust a single authority to provide accurate data. For every other situation itâs more expensive both in terms of storage and processor time, not to mention complexity. So if you can trust like the producer of the product, or the central bank, or a clearing house, a blockchain is inferior. This isnât to say one wonât be used, just that one shouldnât. Furthermore, if you canât trust people collectively as a rule to not lie to you at every turn, thatâs not a technological problem with a technological solution. You better be out in the woods preppinâ cause crypto canât fix a disintegrating society. No tech can. But in something like art where product values are high and provenance is important yet hard to verify and youâre dealing with shady motherfuckers as a matter of course, sure, blockchain may be useful.
Carbon credits, idk man, climate change is a political problem, it needs a political solution. Without the political will to do something, tinkering around the edges with shiny new technocratic policy ainât gonna do shit imo. But anyway say you want to trade carbon credits. Besides, blockchains by design use tons of energy, thatâs where the security comes from. So the more prevalent the blockchain gets used for carbon credits, the more carbon the tallying system burns? Why not just have the government or an international agency manage the records? Youâre relying on them to enforce it anyway.
4 Likes
Proof of work blockchains use tons of energy, proof of stake not so.
Gas dropped by 15%, inflation should be better soon.
So i bought some corn :)
3 Likes
I donât see why it wouldnât be helpful for tracking genuine drugs. The idea would be to create blockchain tokens that match a genuine shipment of drugs and require that the token is delivered along with the product. This would make it impossible to counterfeit a batch of drugs and sell counterfeit versions to 50 different retailers.
Youâre contradicting yourself here where youâre like âcanât fix people lying with technologyâ and then in the very next sentence are like âof course in a world like art where people are routinely dishonest it could be very helpfulâ. Which is it? A pretty good description of what blockchains do is âfacilitate ad-hoc networks of trustâ. This is not a general replacement for structured networks of trust, such as functional governments. But it can help in situations where structured networks of trust are very difficult to build for some reason (such as across international borders, when living under non-functional governments, if the network is complex and frequently-changing, etc).
Why is managing this information in a blockchain better than in the manufacturerâs database? Donât we already have robust tracking for a number of products already? Why should anybody move from a working solution to a more expensive working solution.
Yeah this is reasonable take. Otoh, I suspect the situations with both non-functioning governments and plentiful cheap electricity are few.
Again, massive energy consumption is primarily a feature of first generation blockchains and does not apply to most of those developed in the past 10 years. The perpetually growing storage requirements are also not always necessary now.
Are you a fan or invested in Cardano at all? I keep thinking of them when I read a lot of your posts - just curious. I personally like what they are trying to do.
This is a good post.
Specifically. Some proposed blockchain solutions REQUIRE a trusted central authority and or working agreement outside of the blockchain.
I.e. carbon credits require a bunch of international agreements on rules, verification, enforcement, etc. Typically with state actors. If you have all that, then blockchain carbon credits dont offer anything that a database cant do better and faster.
You want to have 500 different databases, one for every drug manufacturer in the world, and require that every step of every supply chain know how to interact with all of them? Why donât we instead have one system that new manufacturers can join anytime?
There is no reason such a system has to be expensive. Transferring tokens on Ethereum is expensive, but it doesnât have to be that way. Transferring tokens on Flow, for example, is extremely cheap. Fractions of cents.
Again, proof-of-stake blockchains donât require heavy energy usage, and in any case, what energy usage is required is by the people running blockchain nodes, not the people making transactions.
I had some ADA at one point but donât now. I know its non-ideologically pure existence annoys the Ethereum maxis to no end. I donât fell really strongly about it one way or another. I may get some again eventually.
Iâm not even talking about that necessarily. At best it still uses way more CPU cycles and storage space than the alternative, so it costs more. Even if itâs 10x more instead of 10000x more itâs still a lot more.
Thatâs a weird way of looking at it. CPU cycles and storage space can and should be trivial for this sort of thing. The crypto-minimalist response to this is really that this is a use-case for a small, privately run, not very decentralized blockchain.
Putin ngmi.
1 Like
If you donât need it to be public and decentralized, you donât need it to be a blockchain. There is nothing a blockchain can do that another database canât, and plenty it canât do that other database architectures can. Why would you choose the less functional, less mature, less supported software for a thing? Of all the projected uses of blockchains, private ones are the least realistic.
1 Like
done it pump up a bit now