A true blockchain has limited use beyond preserving and transmitting value \ stacker news ~bitcoin

A true blockchain has limited use beyond preserving and transmitting value

725 sats \ 13 comments \ @r3drun3 9 Jan bitcoin

Allow me to elaborate further.

Nowadays, we witness numerous marketing campaigns labeling technologies as "innovative" merely because they incorporate some form of "blockchain". However, upon closer examination, we quickly discover that it is often a smokescreen.

Blockchain, in and of itself, holds no intrinsic meaning.

Contrary to common belief, the consensus algorithm alone does not carry significance either.

Consider for example a fork of Bitcoin, where only the government of the United States can participate in the network due to its closed nature, mining Bitcoin for subsequent distribution. To address a practical and sensible need, a blockchain-based technology must adhere to at least the following requirements:

Decentralized
Open
Secured by Proof of Work
Democratic

Any blockchain that fails to meet even one of these criteria is likely sub-optimal, overkill and inadeguate for its intended purpose.

Those that do meet these requirements typically implement a form of property/value defense mechanism. What truly enhances the utility of a blockchain is a robust underlying game theory.

It is straightforward to ascertain that the entire set of consistent blockchain implementations (i.e., those meeting the above specified requirements) converges into an optimized system for the preservation and transmission of value across space and time, with minimal additional functionalities.
This is not a flaw; rather, it represents a paramount feature.

view all related items

15 sats \ 1 reply \ @0xbitcoiner 9 Jan

Open

Public and permissionless

5 sats \ 0 replies \ @r3drun3 OP 9 Jan

Much better said!

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @orangecrush 9 Jan

Preserving and transmitting value and providing a method of account

We have yet to see the impact of an unmanipulated digital method of account on the free market, but this is the “productivity go up” feature of Bitcoin

0 sats \ 9 replies \ @Fabs 9 Jan

Could you expand on your stance of how the consensus mechanism doesn't hold any significance?

0 sats \ 8 replies \ @r3drun3 OP 9 Jan

Of course! Imagine a blockchain that has point 3 (Secured by Proof of Work) but it is not public, permissionless and all the miners are from a single entity.

0 sats \ 7 replies \ @Fabs 9 Jan

And that's a "no biggie" for you? It'd be a "No-Go" for me.

0 sats \ 6 replies \ @r3drun3 OP 9 Jan

We are saying the same thing... Please re-read my original post.

0 sats \ 5 replies \ @Fabs 9 Jan

You state that it doesn't carry any significance (on it's own).

It does, however. You're with me on that, right?

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Jan

No, because the other aspects surrounding the blockchain invalidate any value add one might assume it would have.

The consensus mechanism on its own, as in, there is nothing else. The consensus mechanism with friends such as fully sovereign node operators on the other hand matters a lot.

0 sats \ 3 replies \ @Fabs 9 Jan

Can you explain it to me in a vacuum, as well as in a real world scenario?

PoW Vs PoS, or PoW and PoW in different settings, as you wish.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @nerd2ninja 9 Jan

Sure, so when Eth was supposably POW, Eth had the difficulty bomb. This made it impossible to continue the chain after a certain block height and the only way to continue the chain was to install a Vitalik released software update.

In other words, the consensus was whatever Vitalik wanted and not made by sovereign node runners in the system. Even without the difficulty bomb, the cost the run a node on Eth was prohibitively expensive so the average user was never going to be making consensus level decisions about what gets to happen to their money anyway.

In stark contrast, Bitcoin has no back door like Eth had under POW and changes are made through multi-year discussions among people who will reflect their decision in the software that they run once there seems to be pretty good agreement about a change.

view replies