• JoeBigelow@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    51
    arrow-down
    5
    ·
    4 days ago

    I feel like block chain as a public ledger has found quite a few purposeful uses, and was a solution to a handful of problems most people rarely if ever encounter. Then fake money got involved

    • AmyAye@nord.pub
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      4 days ago

      The core issue feels like the dead torrent problem.

      Its distributed, so it needs to be hosted, by several locations. Which becomes probitive over time as.it becomes huge. Its also massively inefficient for what its trying to do.

      At some point, its basically just one server farm somewhere hosting a glorified MySWL database that doubles as a space heater for the entire planet every time you need to add a row.

      • rbos@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        I was thinking that with legal backing, blockchain could be a good record of ownership for deeds. Like NFTs but for physical property.

        The history of ownership and the public visibility are good features there.

        • phutatorius@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          3 days ago

          Lack of reliable, authoritative attribution of changes and no rollback or compensatory transactions are all dealbreakers.

          • rbos@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            2 days ago

            In the case of deeds, i think it is desirable because it gives you an immutable history of ownership.

            There are other problems but i don’t believe that is one.

            • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              2 days ago

              No it doesn’t. It only works because 51% doesn’t change the ledger.

              You already have this with a simple database for ownership. It already exists, and ledgers made out of paper predates that.

        • Jason2357@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          But with good legal backing, all you need is a shared database and maybe basic cryptographic signatures to prove ownership in case of malicious actors. So basically, traditional banking.

    • non_burglar@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      4 days ago

      Yes, exactly.

      Block chain would have been an amazing solution to most democratic vote validation processes.

      • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Well no, because we don’t have a problem that blockchain solves (better than open software, if it must be digital), and there are loads of problems that the blockchain doesn’t solve. Like how am I supposed to vote with that thing under no coercion.

        • non_burglar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 days ago

          I’m not really sure what you’re getting at. The blockchain is a good mechanism to maintain a source of truth that is inspectable and verifiable by anyone. It would only serve to certify that official counts can’t be tampered with in certain ways.

          But it doesn’t replace the whole democratic voting process. It doesn’t protect against coercive voting, for instance.

          My point originally was that blockchain can be of use to us, but tech bros ruined its rep. Same with AI. I’ve been waiting for routers with ai-powered (really, just machine learning) firewalls that can adapt rules to environments. But instead of that, everyone is obsessed with generative stuff that isnt very good.

          • Valmond@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Yeah I hear you, but the 51% attack exists. Like if you use paper ballots, you’re safer and it consumes less energy. There is just nothing better by using a blockchain, and paper ballots (for example) can be verified by anyone, the blockchain not so much.

      • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 days ago

        Aren’t votes meant to be anonymous to avoid retribution?

        Isn’t the public ledger identifying information to be used by authoritarian violence on every single voter in that case?

        • non_burglar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Proposed ideas for block chain to maintain election integrity would only use a block chain ledger to verify counts, not store voter information.

      • benjirenji@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        It can still be used that way. While most people talk about how corrupt politicians enrich themselves with fake currencies, more legal and legitimate uses can still use decentralized ledgers for useful things. Of course these won’t make headlines.