[mjevans]

The mention of blockchain in the summary worries me. We have real world data that shows us this only leads to wasted electricity and fabricated silicon shortages/outrageously expensive computer hardware.

The idea of a public ledger and distributed witness signatures is sound though, and that should be the basis of a government approved system of inter-reserve asset tracking.

[politician]

There are different classes of blockchains. For example, the data structure managed by `git` is a blockchain. So, in and of themselves, blockchains are not problematic. When you raise those criticisms you probably meant to address the security function of the consensus mechanism for distributed decentralized ledgers. The security function there is crazy not because the people are evil scammers and con artists, but because Byzantine Fault Tolerance [1] is a hard CS problem, like AI.

Tiered systems for central bank digital currencies that allow complete tracking of all transactions are an active area of interest by central banks. For instance, the PBoC has filed over 80 patents on the subject. You can be sure that these systems don't attempt to solve BFT, don't use as much electricity, and don't protect the peasants from the abuses of the rulers.

[1] https://decrypt.co/resources/byzantine-fault-tolerance-what-...

[bratwurst3000]

Isnt git a merkle tree? And a blockchain a special case of a merkle tree? More like a merkle chain ^.^

[tylersmith]

That's exactly what a blockchain is. Blockchain being the "secret sauce" has always been a misconception; as noted git is exactly a blockchain. What we call refs in git are blocks in Bitcoin.

Nakamoto consensus was the innovation, the major energy consumer, and not necessary for cryptographic data integrity like a CBDC or git repo needs.

[bratwurst3000]

Interesting side fact. Proof of work was used before in 2004 to prevent spam but it failed. Nakamoto put that concept in a merkle tree.

https://m-cacm.acm.org/magazines/2019/8/238347-the-history-o...

[erosenbe0]

Adding signatures or a cipher to nodes is basically the difference.

[jlarocco]

I think you may be confusing "blockchain" with "bitcoin".

A blockchain is just blocks of data linked together using hash functions to guarantee the authenticity of previous blocks. There's no mining, and only a tiny amount of electricity used.

[skybrian]

Isn't that a Merkle tree? "Blockchain" is not commonly used for what git does.

[macksd]

"Block chaining" is absolutely used to refer to that concept in cryptography, and pre-dates cryptocurrency.

[erosenbe0]

Correct. Block cipher, block list, block chain, block vector, array of blocks -- I'm sure you can find them all decades ago.

[acdha]

There’s a fair amount of confusion around that term, however: for example, Bitcoin proponents spent most of a decade saying that only proof-of-waste systems were true blockchains because they knew that anyone picking a different mechanism would have much better performance and cost numbers.

[jonathan-adly]

The anti-crypto bros don’t need that kind of nuance. Blockchains = bad, we don’t need to complicate their simple world with big words.

[whimsicalism]

Why not just be charitable and not malign entire classes of people with certain opinions?

[ur-whale]

> We have real world data that shows us this only leads to wasted electricity

You are either ill-informed and should educate yourself on the subject (blockchain != proof of work-based consensus) or willingly creating confusion by mixing up concepts.

Let's assume the first, shall we?

[mjevans]

You're correct that I'm not an expert in the terminology used in this field. Surely I'm not the only one who hears "blockchain" and thinks it must be like Bitcoin and other proof of work crypto currencies?

Maybe the summary is saying something completely different, in which case the use of 'blockchain' within it can still concern me and any other readers who are similarly wrongly informed.

[anm89]

The concept of a blockchain has ZERO connection to electricity usage.

Proof of work is the thing that uses the electricity. blockchains can use or not use proof of work.

[uncletammy]

Here's an example of an electricity-free blockchain : http://www.righto.com/2014/09/mining-bitcoin-with-pencil-and...

[anm89]

I'm not sure if you are saying this to agree or disagree with me but it's worth noting that you are making the same mistake as the parent. in the article you posted, the thing being created is not a block chain, it's a single proof of work solution.

[RandomLensman]

They opted against the use of DLT, so ok for now, I suppose. After all, it is something explicitly under central control.