Topic: Blockchain is Crappy Technology and a Bad Vision for the Future (Read 182 times)

Well, I am not blaming anyone but since we have recently seen that a country can interfere in the presidential election of another country, it would not be a surprise if governments around the globe trying dirty tricks to indirectly defame Bitcoin and blockchain technology and trying to destroy it by that way. We as the users know Blockchain has a potential to replace almost every centralized system and that's threatening to those who don't want to lose control of our lives.

The idea of smart contracts was brought up at an event on blockchain that I attended recently, and there is still a huge question with smart contracts when it comes to security and making sure the code is reviewed properly. The person who brought up the security in using smart contracts was very adamant that this type of agreement is very unlikely to be accepted by large institutions when issues in coding can costs them up to millions of dollars in funds that will never be able to be brought back. So the response to this from another audience member is that another layer of security would be need to be in place, a higher and centralized authority that would be able to make the call in these types of situations. Is this an idea people would support? Despite it going against the idea of complete decentralization?

It's not rocket science to you. Say that to the people who still think you can only buy one entire bitcoin at a time.

Right. But this works as long as we are only talking about bitcoin. It's code can be deemed trustworthy because of the level of community engagement. It has been proven to work.

Problem arises when you take up more applications of blockchain, like the article argues about smart contracts. Smart contracts have proven themselves to be buggy. The trustlessness feature of smart-contract is dependent on whether you trust the intention and competence of the people who write the code. (My reply above).

What would be your view on the need to make smart-contracts more accessible??

"some degree of knowledge" is only knowing the basics like how to use a wallet and secure it, for example how to buy and use a hardware wallet! the "public" can easily learn that, it is not rocket science at this level. any deeper is not necessary to use it.

This article seems to be hyperbole for sure; however I think the general sentiment can be deemed valid in some parts. You can't just wave a blockchain at any set of problems, you have to implement it in a way that makes sense for that specific area. There is a lot of sensationalism in ICOs. Still, I don't like this article. 

At this point in time, some degree of knowledge is important to be able to trust it, especially if we're dealing with money.

it is one thing to have arguments for and against blockchain technology and discuss them, but it is completely a different thing to not understand it or pretend not understating it and make fake arguments. discussing with the later is a waste of time.
this article is basically saying this:
"because blockchain technology is not perfect and because some centralized third party services using cryptocurrencies have been bad, that means blockchain technology is "crappy""
you can't argue with this logic!


public doesn't need to understand the technology and how it works completely in order to use it.
does the public understand how internal combustion engines work? no but they are using cars.
does the public understand how computers work internally? no but they use computers, cell phones,...

I think the point about trustelssness of smart contracts stands out.

He is not wrong when he says that there is a lot of trust being put into smart contracts to function at various stages like:

1.) The developers are trustworthy and not hide/ ignore bugs in the software.
2.) The publicly auditable software is actually being audited by enough people to be considered reliable.
3.) Even the most robust software will continue to have points of break.

Bitcoin code seems to have been above such failings till now. Though we cannot know a scenario where a fast enough computer would be available to alter the history. You cannot rely on the fact that some secret government somewhere will not fund such a project. All these are plausible scenarios one should consider, if we talk about making the world rely on it.

The solution to this, in my opinion, isn't to shrug shoulders and say, well, blockchain doesn't work because it's too complicated for normal people to understand. The solution, in fact, lies in making the software more accessible and easier to read.
Programming languages have evolved from Binary bits to mnemonics to syntax in English language. Could we, possibly, evolve it into a simple conversational Q&A which will be easy for everyone to understand?
The underlying compiler can be the robust point of trust which could establish itself as  a sort of oracle that can do no wrong and will always give you the right answer. Once you have such a compiler in place, trusted through history of usage and public audit (like bitcoin), you could implement easily understandable smart-contracts on top of it.

---

The other statement that clearly shows lack of understanding and imagination on part of the author is:


The examples are completely unrelated. There is no metaphor-ness in relying on blockchain records to trust whether something actually happened on a product's lifecycle. You are not trusting the farmer's manual record on spraying pesticide. That is what Internet of Things is for. You rely on sensors to upload data onto the blockchain without any human intervention.
If implemented, such a scenario can easily work. Very less human oversight is required to confirm periodically that the systems are indeed being followed to the point.

IOT and Blockchain together can really remove trust/ middle parties from logistics and manufacturing records. It's not like it cannot happen if people like the author find it hard to wrap their heads around it.

Yes, it's also important to know that blockchain is not the end all be all to all of our problems. Part of his criticism here is that people are waving blockchain around like its a magic wand, and I can understand why that itself may be an issue if we are to promote this type of technology to the public--especially to a public that still does not completely understand blockchain or how it works. 

It's important to get arguments from both sides. Not everything should be pro-bitcoin and blockchain if we are to be critical thinkers, so I am mainly curious as to what types of counterarguments people have here. I put all of these quotes because I know most people aren't actually going to read the article. Frankly speaking, most of the people we debate bitcoin and blockchain with don't fully understand the technology. Dismissing their arguments is not constructive. It's more important to know how to word a counterargument that might actually teach the other party something. This is the time we need to spend educating people, despite the few years the technology has been around many people still barely even know the basics.

Yup. Exactly. He needs to go back and read what people were saying about the Internet back during its inception. I don't understand this concept of throwing out the baby with the bathwater just because flaws exist.

This is a good point, people really confuse the security of bitcoin/crypto and the mismanagement of exchanges. These are two different things. An exchange centralizes crypto/blockchain, which in itself is going against the principle of what blockchain is, a decentralized digital ledger.

Blockchain separate from a cryptocurrency is just a glorified database spreadsheet

Idk why but i find the passage about food safety and trust pointless and dumb. No one said that the blockchain can be applied to everything, and I for one always stress that it's pretty much suitable in almost all banking and finance-related services. Any uses beyond that scope should be highly experimental and may not work flawlessly. In part, I somehow agree with the author since not everything can have the blockchain integrated onto its systems. Most people regard bitcoin as a one piece solution to all the world's problems, but it simply isn't going to happen.

author is obviously a fool so why bother quoting such an imbecile here and cluttering the board?

his natural limits are not primed to cope with comprehending fully a decentralised trustless end to end arena

the alternative isnt good either, everybody has a pc, but no one has nowadays a money printing device, like the banks do.

When the first computer was invented in the 50s, the industrialist who first saw the project asked, "Why would a person have a computer at home?". Many other inventions have received and will receive the same welcome.

All new technologies meet these criticisms when they are introduced into a human community. It is the fear of the new, of the unknown. Then time do justice to valid innovations.

Obviously I'm not going to think that blockchain is totally worthless - that's why I'm here on a Bitcoin forum.  Still, it's worth pointing out that this article makes a lot of pretty bad arguments in attempting to claim that it is worthless.
The writer uses examples of negative things that have happened with Bitcoin and negative ways that Bitcoin has been used, but these are not examples of blockchain systems being untrustworthy, they're just examples of people who use it being untrustworthy.  The system itself has been running with zero downtime for almost ten years - imagine an IT system that could do that.

Some blockchain users do use it in blockchain-related activities - for example, when your account is hacked on this forum, you sign a message to get it back.  However, all of these applications are in development and can't be applied to all aspects of people's lives.