[jasode]

>His complaint isn't against the Blockchain or Hadoop, but [...] whether it actually provides benefits.

For his blockchain example, I couldn't find his Dutch handicap parking story via Google for more details so I don't know if a traditional central database would solve the same exact problem.

I'm saying that virtually all dismissals of a blockchain in favor of central databases almost always removes the benefits of decentralization. The ironic part is that the skeptics don't realize that the central db "solution" is incomplete when compared to all the decentralized goals (e.g. multiple witnesses guarding against tampering, potentially lower cost ownership verification, etc). Yes, if one changes the rules or moves the goal posts around, one can replace a decentralized blockchain with MySQL. If somebody is the skeptic, does he even notice that he performed that sleight-of-hand in his argument?!?

[icebraining]

Besides shandor's point, the Blockchain didn't invent decentralized data sharing. I, along with every developer of accounting systems in my country, was writing hash-chained ledgers before the Bitcoin paper was even published.

The innovation brought by the Blockchain was using a proof-of-work to achieve consensus and avoid double-spending in a network of semi-anonymous peers.

The vast majority of proposed uses of the Blockchain for non-currency reasons that I've seen do not suffer from this problem, and therefore do not need the innovation brought by it.

[jasode]

>The vast majority of proposed uses of the Blockchain for non-currency reasons that I've seen do not suffer from this problem, and therefore do not need the innovation brought by it.

Then we've been exposed to different examples. I've not seen any non-trivial proposed uses for distributed consensus blockchain that can be exactly replaced by a central db. Replacement always involves relaxing a constraint (e.g. trust the centralized organization not to tamper, etc).

shandor's point can be generalized to "solutions looking for a problem" which I already agreed with. Where I differ is based on the actual debates on the serious uses of blockchain I've seen, I don't see that technology abuse as the overwhelming situation.

[icebraining]

Again, you keep pushing the false dichotomy of "blockchain vs centralized". Distributed and verifiable data sharing existed before the Blockchain!

[jasode]

>Distributed and verifiable data sharing existed before the Blockchain!

But I'm not talking about any distributed data sharing such as p2p bittorrent with hash verification, or git/github, or NNTP Usenet, or the distributed accounting system you worked on, etc. For purposes of this thread, "blockchain" is synonymous with decentralized trust which I believe is how it's usually used.

I can agree that blockchain didn't invent "decentralized data sharing" but that's not relevant to my point.

[icebraining]

Can you define "decentralized trust"?

[shandor]

I think you're still missing the point. I understood that the author was criticizing the mindset of the companies which "want to use blockchain". In those cases, "moving the goal posts" is actually the sensible thing to do, when said companies are looking into the blockchain without understanding if they are actually going to benefit from the core blockchain benefit of decentralization.

There should be nothing wrong in moving the goal posts, when the original goal seems to be the wrong one.

[notahacker]

Yup. Most of the goalpost-moving happens to make "decentralization" the goal in the first place, so elaborate solutions can be devised to eliminate the need to trust partners not to falsify their record of the contract, despite the fact that in many real world situations if they can't trust their partners that far, there's no way they should be giving them access to property, resources or cash in the first place.

[coldtea]

>For blockchain, I couldn't find his Dutch handicap parking story via Google for more details so I don't know if a traditional central database would solve the same exact problem.

Maybe the "exact same problem" is the wrong thing to try to solve? It might not be a problem in the first place (by itself), just a re-formulation of the actual problem so that it's solvable by blockchain, which seems to be the author's point.