this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
910 points (98.3% liked)

People Twitter

5220 readers
1993 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 152 points 1 day ago (59 children)

I’ve read that blockchain itself is a good technology. NFTs are a laughably absurd attempt to exploit that technology for profit.

Xitter op needs to shut up.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 50 points 1 day ago (39 children)

What problem does blockchain solve?

[–] cRazi_man@lemm.ee 111 points 1 day ago* (last edited 22 hours ago) (1 children)

Having too much electricity and not enough CO2.

[–] taladar@sh.itjust.works 19 points 23 hours ago

We recently developed AI for that purpose though which does the same thing but is useless in occasionally funny ways.

[–] magnetosphere@fedia.io 25 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Apparently, it can be very secure. If “pieces” of a secure key are stored in multiple places, for example, only changing one link in the “chain” means it won’t match with the others. They ALL have to be changed at the same time, which is virtually impossible to do in secret.

Please note that I am far from an expert on the subject. I’m paraphrasing an article I read months ago.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 21 points 1 day ago (10 children)

Can’t you takeover a blockchain by owning the majority of a block chain, or by having a majority of the processing power to compute hashes?

[–] KazuyaDarklight@lemmy.world 38 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yes which is part of why the major chains are owned and controlled by companies, but then that makes the whole thing pointless. IMO, a company controlled blockchain may as well just be a DB cluster, it would be faster and more efficient.

[–] hddsx@lemmy.ca 13 points 1 day ago

Are you saying that they “solve” that by never giving up more than 49% stake?

That… seems like a bad solution

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] NaibofTabr@infosec.pub 21 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Essentially, verifiability (the token exists on the blockchain), de-duplication (each token can only exist once on the blockchain), and proof of ownership (only one account number can be associated with each token on the blockchain). There's nothing wrong with this idea in a technical sense and it could be useful for some things.

But... the transaction process is computationally expensive. For the transaction to be trustworthy, many nodes on the blockchain network must process the same transaction, which creates a whole bunch of issues around network scaling and majority control and real-world resource usage (electricity, computer hardware, network infrastructure, cooling, etc).

And beyond that, the nature of society and economics created a community around this unregulated financial market that was filled with... well, exactly the kind of people you'd expect would be most interested in an unregulated financial market - scammers, speculative investors, thieves, illegal bankers, exploitatitive gambling operators, money launderers, and criminals looking to get paid without the government noticing.

The technology can solve some interesting problems around verifying that a particular digital file is unique/original (which can be useful, because it's extremely easy to make copies of digital information) but it creates a long list of other problems as a side effect.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 3 points 16 hours ago

Almost every single non-theoretical problem that blockchains solve is something we've already solved. And most of the problems you could solve with a blockchains are severely limited by data-size limitations.

It would be amazing if I could decentrally store, say, a movie or videogame on a blockchain. Then, I could sell access tokens, would the owners could resell as they wanted. That's a GREAT way to use blockchain tech, because people would always have access, and they could use or sell the keys as they wanted. It doens't work though, because in the real world, that movie doesn't fit on the blockchain, it'll just be a link the a secondary source, and the whole thing falls apart.

And that's really the problem. Blockchains have a lot of nifty uses, but it almost always immediately falls apart around the edges, where it touches on non-blockchain tech, or, even worse, physical objects.

load more comments (36 replies)
load more comments (58 replies)
[–] Anticorp@lemmy.world 28 points 1 day ago

My advice would be "shut the fuck up and listen".

[–] Hobbes_Dent@lemmy.world 36 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Open with…

Paste

Ok I’m done for now.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›