Blockchain study finds 0.00% success rate and vendors don't call back when asked for evidence

“Though Blockchain has been touted as the answer to everything, a study of 43 solutions advanced in the international development sector has found exactly no evidence of success.”

Man, it seems so bad you’d almost think I’d have a slide warning people about blockchain oil salesmen (they’re almost entirely men) in my talks or something…

@aral When we don't try to shove proof of work, there's great success!

Git! Certificate Transparency Logs! Etc.

But it's quite questionable calling those blockchains.

@alcinnz Directed acyclic graphs and Merkle Trees are awesome. Blockchain and the right libertarians that fantasize about the billions they’ll make with it (often by literally destroying our habitat via proof of work) can fuck right off.

@aral @alcinnz Blockchains have much more things than Merkle Trees that are actually awesome. The capitalistic dream part is just bullshit, but I'd say most parts of bitcoin (or even ethereum and others) are a great source of inspiration.
I had to learn about them for a course I gave and, damn, this is much more interesting (and complex!) than I thought.

@ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz Proof of work is literally destroying our habitat so a few right-libertarian men can get rich.

For a Peerocracy, we don’t need a billion identical copies of the same database. We need a billion databases, each unique, each equal in power, each owned by an individual. Topological decentralisation is the core, not decentralisation of trust.

Directed acyclic graphs + public-key cryptography + sparse replication.

@aral @alcinnz I agree in most of your toot there BUT:

PoW is a genius design decision to implement scarcity in a digital world. Compared with PoS, the scarcity in the PoW is ensured off-chain, while in PoS is on-chain.
This is a great tech solution for a really complex problem. And again: BUT
The fact that it's a great solution for a problem doesn't really mean that we need to solve *that* problem.

So: I agree, but PoW is interesting even with that.

@aral @alcinnz Also, the problem of the PoW is that you are not solving the same problem it does, so... it makes perfect sense if it doesn't fit you.

PoW ensures that the blockchain is secure. Accumulated PoW of the blocks make Blockchain unable to change. It's a key point of the emergent consensus.

That doesn't mean that we need that kind of consensus in EVERY FUCKING APP like the new "Blockchain not bitcoin" companies suggest.

It solves a *VERY SPECIFIC* problem.

@aral @alcinnz And that's why Bitcoin is developing other kind of things like lightning network. They are aware of it.
Looks like the rest of the industry still isn't...

@ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz What you said in the last sentence. And it has a very specific world view: one where human relationships are replaced by mathematical certainty (which isn’t even the case the moment you have a 51% attack). The right libertarian ideology at the heart of blockchain cannot be ignored and its goals are definitely not my goals. So, yes, of course our designs are going to differ.

@aral @alcinnz Exactly, and that's perfectly fine.

I don't have the same goals that bitcoin has neither but I have to admit it solves a hard to solve problem in a clever way.

I wouldn't say bitcoin people is only right libertarian. I think there's more people involved on that. Right libertarians came later...

Anyway, in your toot what you proposed as a Peerocracy is a "my fact and your fact" system, which is not bad. They just have other point of view, where the reality is just one.

@aral @alcinnz You just have different ideas for decentralization.
I prefer yours for most of the things, but not for gold-like digital money (that's the only place where a blockchain has some sense).

But you are not trying to make a gold like digital money, are you? 😉


Hang on a minute! That's not a “study”, that is an opinion article¹ and billed as such.

I do not care about #blockchain one way or another but you cannot fight #FUD with FUD.


@aral @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz

@aral @ekaitz_zarraga @alcinnz Do you have any good articles to read about a topological decentralization model?

@ekaitz_zarraga @aral Fundamentally the problem is that proot-of-work hamstrings your project's success. It delibrately slows performance way down so that one computer isn't in charge.

There is an interesting alternative now in "Avalanche", but fundamentally I don't know if it's needed. If the Merkle-DAG lets me audit the network's history, and if the cryptography authorizes everything and ideally protects my privacy, what do I care if it's a central server?

@ekaitz_zarraga @aral @alcinnz what kills me about listening to the unknowing about blockchains is that most of the features they are excited about come from a DHT, not a blockchain.

@aral The banks making blockchain their priority sure must be happy about this (the most ambitious project I've seen being Ripple, which is a "currency" which is intended to replace SWIFT and that's it)

@aral's kinda funny because the ancaps in the cryptocurrency community at the time were the first ones to harshly complain about #blockchain initiatives, as they thought it was just banks trying to take attention and money away from cryptocurrencies 🤔

@aral (that must have been around late 2013-early 2014)

@aral Permissioned blockchains are useless, might as well use a database. Ethereum has some uses.

@aral I’m so glad that big report I wrote on it 3 years ago is proving totally correct. 🙄

@aral Blockchain is one of those masturbatory buzz that programmers get enamoured with that feeds their thirst for tech.

@aral who REALLY cares? Why the need for transparency? Does chaining yourself to the door of twitter ever change the trust of the masses? Nobody really cares. Distributed Ledger is for your Mom

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Aral’s Mastodon

This is my personal Mastodon.