Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by drcode on Thursday November 30, 2017 @02:21PM
(#15818660)
OP talked about "Blockchain" not bitcoin specifically (which has more limited use cases, but that's not relevant to this thread)
Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by pdpi on Thursday November 30, 2017 @07:08PM
(#15820848)
A git history is a "blockchain" in the strict sense (A Merkle tree with branching factor = 1), so it's not a very helpful term. Bitcoin, at least, has the common decency of having a very concrete innovation as part of its value proposition, so you can discuss its merits. "blockchain" as a term used in the industry at large means so many different things that it ends up not meaning anything at all.
Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by ska on Thursday November 30, 2017 @04:27PM
(#15819692)
But he's right - most of the properties of the blockchain are not novel. Distributed consensus is the novelty, which is part of the problem with people talking hyper-enthusiastically about applications that either don't require, or don't allow it.
Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by DennisP on Thursday November 30, 2017 @02:16PM
(#15818610)
Ethereum uses essentially the same consensus algorithm for lots of things besides currencies.
Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by pdpi on Thursday November 30, 2017 @06:17PM
(#15820555)
My definition of "doesn't work" here is: the security guarantees that the consensus protocol provides stop applying. Just because nobody has found it worthwhile to attack Ethereum "not a currency" stuff yet doesn't mean that it's safe.
Re:The Blockchain Is Bigger Than Any Bubble
by DennisP on Friday December 01, 2017 @08:34AM
(#15823674)
Ethereum's consensus model makes the same security guarantees for contract operation that it does for the built-in currency; given the value of Ethereum-based tokens there's a very large bounty for anyone able to poke a hole in that.
Of course this is only a guarantee that contracts will run as written, not that they're written correctly. There's a lot of research on applying high-assurance techniques to contract development but it'll be a while before that stuff is ready for production.
The only really novel thing Bitcoin brought to the table was the consensus algorithm (which is in no way, shape, or form a complaint — it's precisely what it should be) — but that consensus algorithm only works for currencies (for a sufficiently loose definition of currency that allows for the current fees and delays). Nakamoto consensus solves the double-spend problem, but only if mining blocks gives you a reward that's denominated in the same currency as the transactions you're mining.