|
|
|
|
|
|
by rcxdude
1935 days ago
|
|
|
The maintenance of consensus in blockchains is expensive, both in terms of resources used in proof of work (though other less wasteful consensus rules are possible), and in terms of technical complexity. It also has certain tradeoffs in terms of immutability which aren't always desirable. For example, what happens if ownership of the diamond token on the blockchain and ownership of the physical diamond get seperated somehow? From the looks of things (again, technical details are extremely sparse on the website so I'm forced to speculate), this is a new technical development not leaning on any particular existing piece of code, so by choosing blockchain they have chosen to take on extra work to implement it (and blockchain consensus is not easy to implement). If they were to e.g. implement it on top of etherium somehow then I could buy they are riding on something 'built-in' (though they would then be paying the cost of etherium 'gas'). This is why I am distrusting of systems which aim to use blockchain when they don't need to (and certainly the existence of systems which work but they could work just as well or better independent of blockchain doesn't point to blockchain being a useful technology). > Just because they are not telling you exactly how they do it, doesn't mean they don't make a good job at it It also doesn't mean they are doing a good job. Absent visible results (I have this for 5G), a technical explaination (with 5G I can read far more detail on this than I ever would want to know just from public documents even without all the internal details), or even a description of how this is intended to be used or exactly what guarantees it provides, how am I supposed to take this as evidence it works (let alone is a natural solution to the problem)? It's basically "just trust us, bro", ironic for a technology which is supposed to work in a trustless manner. >The only reason to dismiss it as the tool of choice is a personal belief I do think blockchains have potential, but it is a technology which is only sensible in a very narrow set of circumstances, because it is a solution with a lot of extremes owing to it attempting to solve an extreme problem (global trustless consensus). |
|
|
For one, the blockchain hype train is currently used and abused by too many. It's a viable technology - at least in my opinion - but as of now, it will not "bank the unbanked", or whatever. It's way too complex and there are a lot of problems to be solved, PoW is one, scalability is another one, the learning curve is there too, and then is boulevard media who like to report on shady things, of course, putting everything in a bad light.
But! I think having basically a global copy of all data and fundamentally turning the trust model 180° is something we desperately need. All the layers and layers of auditing, risk management, risk mitigation, reporting, re-reporting, re-auditing, departments over departments in financial organizations, or the way the free-for-data model of Facebook and Google works is just disgusting to a large degree.
But, as with everything, we will see where it goes. I am strongly on the side of innovation and change. I am not considering myself a full Blockchain fanboy, but definitely more leaning towards this technology and giving it in many cases more benefit of the doubt than other people would do.
Which is good. A healthy discussion needs pros and cons.
Have a good day sir!