Submitted by dogonix t3_zsfutk in Futurology
runefar t1_j1bzn46 wrote
Reply to comment by Dan_Felder in The Metaverse: More Hype Than Substance? by dogonix
To be honest, it is actually much more that the financial use cases get higher prioritization while groups working on use cases that are more about building on top of these aspects of the technology don't get as much focus. In addition, it isn't really reinventing the wheel, rather it is integrating different parts into different systems. I actually partly agree that some of this stuff can already be done before but part of the goal is in fact specifically in doing the same things we could do before on a more decentralized network because of the weakness that a centralized network has and certain disadvantages that it has when you are working with different systems. Enabling access to both centralized and decentralized systems as a whole is in fact what many people desire in spaces such as advanced air mobility because it enables increased stability of the network as a whole for example and data to flow through it in a way that can not be as consistently acomplshied over a centralized network.
In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain. It is of course before you understand the technology and when you are more normalized to it but the truth is that all technology has a social hole in it. Ensuring that the vulnerability is more on the social hole rather than the technology itself is actually indicative of a stronger system technology wise and it shows that we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.
This is in fact one of the goal of blockchain technologies which is to ensure as much as realistically possible the hole in security are on the human side. Sadly that will always be a problem and that is also why more people must learn about the technology but most technology have huge holes in both sides and increasingly centralized services(as well as PoS) can be attacked with specific method. Considering these aspects gives us more options to build on in relation to cyber security of different data as well especially when we are discussing about the automation and transportation of it. Plus yes I would agree that it isn't perfect. To me I want people to build on it because we all have our own needs. That to me is what a architectural technology means. I don't think people should be forced to build on it but I do think they should be more willing to understand it and build on it and I think there are usages with its different consues making aspects that affect real aspects of our society yet at the same time, this is also just very architectural stuff that will be built on top of too. In addition, to some level aspects of decentralization can also offer interconnection with digitization of more analog based routines as well and with certain use cases in specific niches that may have its own specific niche too while still retaining of course an analog core. As we increasingly need some way to interconnect even our analog components into broader systems, there may be a place for fulfilling that function with how blockchain functions in some respect and that may also be a component of further system surrounding more aerospace based operations. To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.
With different companies they will end up building on it in different ways and towards different direction. This doesn't remove that there was an initial use case long time ago when blockchain was created. It just shows how its use has expanded and how it has become much more of an ecosystem. Even my own white paper is more focused on utilizing it towards more mechanical usages and around renewable usages.Different spheres will completely use it in different ways and experiment with it in different ways. It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using. Different systems bring different interaction after all and with that you can build on in different ways. But yeah I also wish more than the financial sector were getting hyped up so people would be seeing all the technology companies I am used to interacting with but sadly that is unlikely. In fact for example you compared smart contract to a trading algorithm and you aren't fully wrong too. But as I pointed out earlier that is literally just the most default smart contract. Not all smart contracts function that way. While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system. This means they may not always be seen as simply a replacement for trading algorithm but other elements of the system too and it is really that aspects which to some degree makes them quite useful. basically the ability to much more automate and systematized aspects that normally would be more difficult to do between parties yet on a basis where both parties can verify it as well including within the system itself. Maybe as I hinted earlier you should read a bit more about smart contract on the stacks page
Dan_Felder t1_j1c4t1g wrote
I'm passing over the first chunk because it doesn't give any concrete specific use cases. While you may be alluding to a real one, I've heard enough "this totally fixes X problem" when it actually doesn't once you get to specifics. For example:
>In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain[...] we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.
If you're trying to stop your house flooding when it rains, you shouldn't worry too much about making the door-seams watertight as long as there's a gigantic hole in your roof. The point is that the added 'security' offered by blockchain in most cases is not meaningfully making anything more secure, because there are massive vulnerabilities either way that are exploited far more often.
It's actually worse than that though, because the unique characteristics of the blockchain actually make things worse for phishing - since blockchain has a much harder time reverting fraudulent transactions, and the lack of a human layer right now makes it harder to spot fraud in progress too. So it's like ripping more material OFF the roof in order to board up the doorseams. Senseless way to keep the rain out.
​
>To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.
Sounds like you believe you have a lot of examples of limitations encountered within centralized systems that are best solved by decentralized systems that require blockchain. Mind listing your best one?
​
>It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using.
I say it has no use cases because no one has ever been able to articulate a meaningful use case that can't be done better or cheaper without it. There are some extremely narrow use cases but nothing close to what the blockchain pushers claim. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of usecases I've ever heard anyone suggest that seem to require blockchain or are more efficient with blockchain.
The problem is that a blockchain ledger is just fundamentally a bigger, slower, less efficient version of a normal ledger. That's why there are no usecases.
Removing the "trusted central authority" is an illusion. While control of the network can be spread out to people that pay for the computing power or tokens, you can also do this via "buying voting shares". Buying equity in a bank is not a new idea.
It is extremely difficult to make the transactions truly irreversible and the ledgers impossible to fork or rollback without... well... Removing the ability for people to fix problems or roll back fraud. Which is FAR more common a problem and harder to handle within official channels than a centralized authority going rogue and ignoring its shareholders or fiduciary responsibilities under the law.
"The system is bad" is not a sales pitch to replace it with a worse, less efficient, more fraud-prone system.
>While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system.
Yes, for example the automated algorithims of High Frequency Trading firms are monumnetally complex and execute in microseconds. The problem with this argument is that saying "programming has use cases" is not an argument for blockchain. Blockchain requires programming, programming doesn't require blockchain.
The same flawed argument is made in the NFT space, when people start talking about being able to sell digital assets to other players for real money being a use case; when people have been doing that for over a decade already in various games.
runefar t1_j1ez6l3 wrote
Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective. I just am still trying to balance this with a generalized take as well because different space will have different needs and because we shouldn't simplify a technology that is meant to be built on. A technology that you put on your roof is in many ways much more of an end layer solution. Having been in several programs developing things like it, often there are IP it is interconnected with too that are not useless yet are still more relevant for the manufacture than the end layer for example aspects that affect aerogel design and similar aspects.
Also admittedly, part of why I keep it generalized is because I don't want to go into details about every single industry themselves because I already have wall of text. Basically to keep it simple but a desired aspect of the model advanced aerospace is the concept of an airspace that is actively ongoing in our ecosystem around us helping out in emergency systems. In many cases a drone can be communicated by with a centralized network but as the aerospace becomes more and more complex, the benefit towards having a decentralized network is the ability for each unit to much more pass data seemlesly back and forth between each other and act as nodes as part of a greater network. For those who are focused on researching the intercommunication of automation of drone, decentralization is often seen as a natural next step by many NASA scientists I have talked to and those who work on different drone related projects. The first step is of course increasingly mesh networking many devices and interconnecting via that sense creating more FANET devices that can send peer to peer information and creating a mesh network of information that way. Then increasingly the usage of decentralized native technologies like blockchain is in some sense partly to do what you actually criticized them for doing which is do what they were doing before just automating them and doing it on a decentralized public ledger. This may not be important for your project, but it affects how different systems can be built especially when we are talking about systems where there can be a temporary disconnect of the network and a reconnect such as in emergency situations. Conseus mechanism based aspects around that situation actually do potentially lead to bigger changes around what we can with say emergency fire trucks that are operating on different frequency and farther away from the city and how systems of interaction that be built in around them. As well, it more and more is becoming relevant to potentially affecting locations that are currently stuck in a digital divide as places like indigenous population are actually quite big contributors to building in the ecosystem too.
In addition, in the NFT space, you are fully right that isn't a completely new thing and I wish more people acknowledged that. I mean heck I remember when people were hoarding CD for the same reason they were talking about NFTs and crypto. In fact I find it is more people outside the NFT space who don't acknowledge that. People within the NFT space may instead use it for different community application or they may be building their own application around the technology such as my friend mirlo is around her studio based application of smartist. All of this has to work with the social systems of course, but different people see this as solving different needs like Mirlo actually see this as enabling more visibility for digital artists and the ability to create a more studio like environment for artists than was previously able to be had in the digital space. Other more use it for selling community access for example or just for selling the NFT themselves. Further more other use the NFT to automate data that so that it can be sent to doctor but never exclusively remain in the hands of doctors as well as be transparent about where it has gone and yet private giving more access attempting to create new networks around fertility treatment and automation. Interestingly even the UN has their own take on blockchain https://unite.un.org/sites/unite.un.org/files/emerging-tech-series-blockchain.pdf and of course countries like estonia use it along with x_chain as part of their healthcare https://investinestonia.com/business-opportunities/e-health/healthcare/
Dan_Felder t1_j1f1q39 wrote
>Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective.
Nope, it's just that I'm giving examples of automated processes that already exist without the blockchain, and using finance as an example is an easy one.
You have unfortunately not provided use cases in detail for most of your use cases, which means I can't trust they're actually solutions to real problems requiring blockchain. You'd need to explain the "how" and demonstrate that it's better than alternatives with a convincing case. If you're worried about walls of text, I suggest writing more substance as generalized claims without specifics are not useful or convincing.
I can easily believe peer-to-peer communication has applications in certain industries, it's been used for a long time, but I doubt these require blockchain. If the goal is increased efficiency, blockchain generally slows everything down by definition. If the goal is simply "decentralization" then you can do it more easily without blockchain in most applications. I doubt firetrucks have a big need for "trustless" algorithm decision making.
I feel like I've covered the nonsense of the NFT aspect of this before, so I won't do so again in detail - but NFTs do nothing meaningful to protect artists. In fact, rightclick save into minting an NFT linking to the same image is a common way NFTs increased the amount of art theft going on.
I also find it's weird that you keep complaining about me responding to the financial use cases and keep providing me financial use cases - as this UN link is just a restatement of "blockchain creates trustless decentralized immunatable records of ownership". Like your examples of royalties and automated trading, this comes back around to finance and the problems with phishing and fraud are still massive here.
I actually think the UN has reason to be interested in blockchain because they often deal with one of my few usecases I do see as relevant: which is they deal with disputes between countries and political/financial powers where there's no higher governing authority to appeal to. The idea of a blockchain handling some of these issues for them would make them happy. However, the problems persist with the power dynamics as they always do and I've covered elseqhere in my posts. Won't keep restating them.
Creating backups to backups to backups of government records is already doable without blockchain tech as well and not relevant for most industries. It's also one of my few use-cases I consider semi-valid. The BIG problem here is that the expense of migrating all the existing data to a blockchain based solution is so inefficient and risks a lot of problems compared ot just saving and printing more backups.
Migrating data infrastructures is a pretty colossal endeavor and the rewards would have to be gigantic to justify it. Some governments will do it even if inefficient of course because it can enrich benefactors.
runefar t1_j1ezy58 wrote
Also an example of one NASA blockchain project https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190000022 though naturally they tend to primarily experiment with hyperledger at the moment so using a private ledger, but with similar other aspects. There is some different arguments I would say personally on public versus private ledgers and in fact how you can create networks that fulfill the mix of the needs of both but that it is a whole other story. Be aware though this is likely not one of their priority investigations of course and even at NASA different departments will be unaware of the investigations of others even when it seems like they should be investigating the same aspect. I know this from personal experience and it can be so awkward lol XD but NTRS host a good amount of blockchain relevant project mainly from names. Of course some on NTRS to look out for are those from competitions but most are from ames
Really though as I emphasized earlier, this is more an ecosystem with both its own benefits and difficulties. It isn't solely about a transition to decentralization though for different areas that may come with different benefits. Creating further aspects to facilitate different needs sometimes exactly the same needs in ways we couldn't do before because different interaction do require reformating our system in different ways at times.
And yes, we shouldn't be overly confident in security either, as I emphasized earlier I do believe that account for the human side is very important. In fact that is often my issue with a lot of policies around blockchain which is that they are overly standardized.
Also what you said isn't exactly true about reverting transactions but that can be network dependent. In fact, It can be easier to track transaction on blockchain without indirectly messing up anyone up unlike on the banking network where if someone steal money the people who are along the path also have a high chance of having their money reverted too. In the cases where there has been a direct to reversion, blockchain turned out to be able to be better than the banking systems at it because it didn't put the people along the way at risk as well. Interestingly cases where it is held in a centralized institution rather are an exception though because they are in fact not decentralized and are in fact closer to our centralized banking system funny enough and those have been where the biggest scams are. It isn't perfect though and there is difficulties and that is why we need to make more people understand it too and not overstandardize our regulation, but build off the technology too so that the laws can not be solely based on how the fiancance was done previously or how fiance is done but how the technology works and is likely to develop too to be able to better counter that problem. It goes into this whole thing about pseudoanonymity versus it being coded into the ledger and what that means from a more functional standpoint when we get into situations like that(of course actually it will also have been visible that it was moved too in the code). In addition this also goes into the whole thing about the difference between an architectural technology versus a system on top. Even bitcoin can be viewed as an architectural technology and more complicated systems can and potentially should be built on top with visions of those aspects though their are arguments for why or why not as well as different programs,
Dan_Felder t1_j1f2an4 wrote
I don't know enough about the tech to evaluate this, but one of the weaknesses of blockchain from a security standpoint is that you inherently spread the information in more places so all the computers can check it. I have doubts it's genuinely the best way to keep information anonymous vs other forms of decentralization. Again, I don't know enough about this situation, but I find it amusing how the two major aspects of Blockchain people often push are the "transparency" on the one hand and "total lack of transparency" on the other.
runefar t1_j1f6dcf wrote
Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technologies. It also isn't transparency versus total lack of transparency and I try to explain this to so many people because it seems like people have an issue imagining a binary that doesn't exist. It is more that the ledger itself interests as a form of transparency around the transactions that are occuring while you can have more protection around the data itself that is being actively transported. You can not get this level of protection with a centralized system because if someone successfully penetrates the centralized system they now have access to your data. With a decentralized system, it is as if there are multiple nodes delegated to different tasks as well as interconnected within a mesh style.
When they disconnect from the network, the network as a whole is still up and if they did any transaction peer to peer off the network when they reconnect to the network, the conceus mechanism will go through the process it needs to do to verify those transactions)done by stacking, mining or in a PoX both). This means even a network that operated its transactions off the internet through peer to peer transaction can then be enabled to be settled within the network through the conseus mechanism when it eventually does reconnect.
Literally all forms of decentralization could be described by "spread the information in more places". Also it is their miners or stacker that are running a cryptographic conseus mechanism to dedicate that energy towards verifying the rest of the network. They are much more facilitating the flowthrough of the network than looking at what exactly is in your data. It is more about conseus of the transactions that occurred within the network
​
Dan_Felder t1_j1f8dw4 wrote
>Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technolo--
The stuff you just posted is super basic. I just don't have the arrogance to dig into an academic paper on a specific argument for a use case and analyze it against the technical and security risks of other forms of securing data in an industry I've never worked in, one which has a lot of complex and difficult-to-foresee incentives, limitations, etc. There's too big an information black hole for me to feel comfortable making a judgment about the various competing cases here in the practical world of solving real world problems more efficiently than other problems.
I've seen enough people confidently asserting blockchain will replace every industry and pretty much nothing but wild failure - even in the things they were *specifically* designed for; securing transactions and protecting artists. Both have been calamitous failures, as the inventor of the tech admitted to.
I have also already said that backing up data without governing transactions is a possible use case and may have special interest for governments, since there is no need to reverse transactions or deal with the other downstream problems when you're just collecting data - and I already said that decentralized models have use cases.
I doubt it's efficient to do this with exsiting government records vs other options for securing them, but it's possible that highly sensitive intelligence data that is building new networks from the ground-up anyway makes sense to use them. However, I don't know enough about the internal incentives, programs, day to day work, alternative models, etc to make a clear value judgment and don't pretend I do.
runefar t1_j1ff9zg wrote
Fair enough though when you talk about failure remember that it is important to remember that all technology also works with the social systems too and that many of those failures are more to do the fact that we have to over time both adapt on both sides too. That has to be considered as well in what a failure is. Is it a failure in the technology or a failure for both the social and technology to mesh.... but yes there are things to be built on and interegrations to be done better.... that is why ecosystems exist afterall
if you want to talk more just dm so we don't bother anyone else. see you around. I may have information to provide you but you are in fact indirectly being less specific about information you are asking for then you realize so naturally I am starting with the basic when it sounds like you don't grasps key elements. Even more different systems will be more or less hyper specific about intersection to some degree and depending on how you can envision a system I may or may not be able to describe how it is done simply because I don't know about the other technology requirements of the system and then how they may work together. That in the end affects aspects of the solution too and how they manifest as well in a design
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments