|
|
|
|
|
|
by IgorPartola
2160 days ago
|
|
|
Those are useful examples of a blockchain. But when I log into GMail I (a) do not want this fact to be a part of a public ledger and (b) I don’t need this to be trustless. The latter is an important point: I already trust GMail with a ton of my data including the ability to reset my credentials. There is little value gained and a lot of simplicity lost in adding a blockchain to the mix. Blockchains have several uses but to date they are narrow. Everywhere outside of their core use cases (essentially contracts or keeping track of tokens of value) they are a hindrance. Blockchains are also hugely inefficient by design (if they were they’d be easy to crack or to perform a 51% attack on), so when you are communicating with a single third party which you trust to provide a service to you, you absolutely do not need a blockchain. We have seen time and time again people trying to throw this solution at all the problems from DNS to buying groceries and yet the only solutions still worth talking about remain cryptocurrencies. Turns out well defined client/server APIs and databases actually do work about as well as anything else. In the spirit of discussion, what could you do if you involve a blockchain in logging into GMail that you absolutely cannot do without it? If the answer is nothing, then there is zero reason to go down that path. |
|
|
> crypto currencies are a good solution for one thing only: electronic currencies.
You contradict yourself by stating above you believe there's only one valid use case for blockchain, but in your most recent comment you obviously admit there are several valid use cases (though admittedly a limited number). Maybe your initial comment was meant for emphasis and not literally that you believe there is only one use case, but be careful using quantifiable verbiage or hard numbers to portray emphasis without explicitly stating that's what you're doing, your credibility gets called into question when doing so.