undefined | Better HN

0 pointspibechorro4y ago0 comments

Slowest and least efficient.. you realize some blockchains update in seconds? For a low value proposition like borrowing a lawnmower you dont need the most secure public network on earth to do it. You use the right blocchain for the right applications.

The problem with trust, is that its awesome until it aint. When we are deaing with gov policy, billions of dollars, war, your life savings,etc a break in trust is beyond costly, making the use cost of a slower but secure blockchain the responsible thing to do.

0 comments

7 comments · 2 top-level

gumby4y ago· 3 in thread

> Slowest and least efficient.. you realize some blockchains update in seconds?

Imagine if when you pushed the “buy now” button on Amazon it took seconds for the transaction to complete. You’d stop using Amazon.

ntoskrnl4y ago

It already does take seconds. Sometimes even minutes or hours. When you click "buy now", Amazon optimistically pretends the order completed instantly, and queues a backend job to charge your card. If your card is declined, you get an email some time later.

moritonal4y ago

It's almost as if they use trust to be efficient.

actionablefiber4y ago

I agree it's inefficient, but, um, that happens to me all the time when I'm in a part of my house where the Wi-Fi doesn't reach very well, and I still go to that part of the house and I still use Amazon in it. Waiting 10 seconds for an order confirmation is not a big deal if the result is I can get a rice cooker shipped to my house within 24 hours.

nonameiguess4y ago· 2 in thread

So war on the blockchain? That sounds like a good example of what is meant by "dystopian." Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain. It's like you took democracy, but got rid of the elements of constitutional republicanism that mitigate the weaknesses of democracy, leaving only the weaknesses. Except not really, because that would be a plain tyranny of the majority of unique human persons and this is a tyranny of a majority of wealth, which may only be a tiny number of people. I guess it's more like returning to feudalism, except the lords and kings no longer have to raise armies and fight each other. The richest coalition just wins automatically.

gumby4y ago

> Imagine a world where whether Ukraine gets to stay sovereign or becomes part of Russia is determined by a global consensus of the wealthiest wallet addresses on a blockchain.

Actully, this is basically what’s happening in your example.

The citizens of the wealthiest countries are participating in the war by sending armaments and aid to Ukraine. The majority of the world’s citizens* are sitting it out or providing some amount of assistance to the Russian side, mainly through commerce.

It’s not on the blockchain, but essentially wealth is “voting”.

FWIW I’m far, far from being a blockchain supporter. I’m just addressing your example.

* yes, at the UN the majority states voted against Russia, but if you look by populations, the west won an “electoral college” victory on the topic.

jnovek4y ago

I think the point is that it’s just a change of venue for making consensus; the roles don’t change.

A small number of people with lots of resources choose whether a large number of people with few resources fight each other to the death.

GGP implied that war was something a blockchain could “fix”, but GP argues that it, at best, it maintains the status quo.

In my opinion, it’s a little worse than the status quo because at least before those with few resources got some small say in the matter via their elected representatives.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse