Researchers from several institutes worldwide recently developed Quarks, a new, decentralized messaging network based on blockchain technology. Their proposed system could overcome the limitations of most commonly used messaging platforms, allowing users to retain control over their personal data and other information they share online.

  • upstream@beehaw.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    48
    ·
    10 months ago

    People are still looking for problems to which blockchain is the solution.

    So far we’ve found none.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Most of what you describe is the inverse: Problems for which blockchain is the cause, or at least part of the problem.

        That a speculative digital asset with no tangible value could perform better than other objects of investments, including currency, should not be surprising, that’s just group psychology and concerted effort to make people want to invest in intangibles.

        Argentinian currency might be tangible, but its valuation isn’t.

    • mpldr@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      I would beg to differ. It seems to be pretty useful for Software development. After all git repos are Blockchains. That being said: use a solution that fits your problem, don’t try to adapt a problen to your solution. Thats something a lot of the crypto- or AI-bros are apparently misunderstanding

      • snowe@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        10 months ago

        After all git repos are Blockchains

        No, git repos are merkle trees. Blockchains happen to build on merkle trees. Git is not blockchain.

        • mpldr@beehaw.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          I suppose it depends on how exactly you define a blockchain. If you add distributed consensus algorithms and a requirement for BFT resistance, then it clearly isnt. Its the usual issue with definition…

          • upstream@beehaw.org
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            10 months ago

            The definition isn’t the problem. Git isn’t blockchain, never was, never will be. Thank god Linus

            • mpldr@beehaw.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              10 months ago

              Since a definition is descriptive, not prescriptive, I think it’s paramount.

    • 0x815@feddit.deOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      You’re right. A blockchain doesn’t solve the double-spending problem, so don’t create decentralized payment networks. Let’s use something like Paypal instead, you know, the one that will sooner or later merge with this single-letter company.

      You can also use Google Pay or Apple Pay, and developers can use their stores to monetize their apps. Just 30% or so commission and the apps ‘adjusted’ to the stores’ rules (to be fair, there are not really soooo many trackers, right?).

      Proof of provenance isn’t a use case either. Use Amazon servers. Microsoft Azure. They store all the data, and it’s safe.

      We don’t need companies like drife.io or particl.io. We have Uber and Amazon. Centralized services are much better. They are so good for humanity that their companies don’t even have to pay taxes.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You’re pointing out plenty of good problems that wasting CPU cycles and lack of authority doesn’t solve.

        Maybe if we actually looked harder for a solution instead of throwing one that doesn’t work on the problem and hyping it up to be everything that it will never be - we could actually get somewhere.

        I mean it all sounds fine when people spin it, but take a step back and look at the problems inherit to the “solution”.

        Just based on your phrasing and tone I’ll probably never convince you, but don’t trust me. There’s plenty of people out there who’s described the problem way better than I ever will.

        And there are solutions to the problems you point out, they just don’t involve useless computing and executing arbitrary code.

        But if you really want to get into fixing these problems you need to get involved with policy (ie. politics).

        We need to fix politicians being elected thanks to corporate capital, both direct and indirect.

        We need to fix tax regulation globally. We need to stop the race to the bottom where companies incorporate where they can funnel money back to the mothership without paying tax.

        We need to fix education, so people get a clue and don’t elect corporate puppets or flat out fascists.

        We need to fix healthcare.

        We need to fix environmental policy, and thanks to the environmental policies for the last 200 years, the environment as well.

        Heck, we even need to fix the Internet.

        And all the idealism in the world - the idealist blockchain crowd becomes useful idiots because they’re busy with something that won’t work out (instead of pushing the world in a better direction).

        I do however highly recommend a few talks with Larry Lessig:

        https://youtu.be/mw2z9lV3W1g

        https://youtu.be/PJy8vTu66tE

        And on DMCA (you may want to start with this):

        https://youtu.be/7Q25-S7jzgs?si=RJniq02TSd7vTOPw

    • AlmightyTritan@beehaw.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I have to wonder if it’s a solution looking for a problem or a matter of people trying to just throw stuff at a wall and see what sticks.

      I think it also probably has to do with the sheer number of people trying to create something that every one of them has to learn that just because something exists, doesn’t mean you have to use it. They end up just building it hoping that people will come to use it, but sometimes you gotta learn the hard way that it isn’t always the case.

      • upstream@beehaw.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Pretty sure the first guy trying to pitch money faced an uphill battle. But at least it was tangible.