1
Please Stop (jlai.lu)
submitted 6 months ago by ElCanut@jlai.lu to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

OK but there are actually great uses for blockchain that are completely disconnected from anything you typically see

For example, banks may begin using blockchain for maintaining their internal ledgers. It will help solve a ton of issues around reconciling the transactions from all over the globe

Blockchain has reasonable uses. Really good ones. Crypto and nft bros just completely ruined the image of it

[-] kameecoding@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

How is the blockchain different from a read only ( write only once to be specific) DB that follows ACID?

[-] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Blockchains add cryptographic signing and limit actions based on those signatures.

load more comments (11 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[-] Draegur@lemm.ee 0 points 6 months ago

i for one would have liked a media licensing system that operates agnostic of any centralized authority

for instance, irrefutable and independently verifiable proof that you own a valid software, music, or visual art license and are therefore immune to prosecution for piracy.

A registry of licenses like this could shield creators from copyright claims on social media applications such as youtube. Could also automate revenue sharing and royalties for artists whose works are used in derivative media so the people who actually perform the work get paid. Would be nice to cut the publisher middleman out. And there is absolutely no reason there has to be anything like a "proof of work" system burning down entire fucking rainforests' worth of energy to verify every single gods damned transaction because this sort of system isn't for trading shit, it's strictly for proving a valid chain of custody between producers and consumers and you don't need megawatt-hours to just fucking LOOK SOMETHING UP.

imagine if, for instance, fucking warner brothers couldn't "takes backsies" content that they SOLD to end users through a distribution network; the license is yours, and anyone can look up the fact that the license was sold to the user id you happen to control.

imagine if, for instance, you buy a video game through a digital distributor like steam but then the store goes out of business and no longer exists to serve you a copy or recognize the sale, but on this massively distributed and decentralized database you can prove that you did indeed compensate the developers of that software and thereby legally acquire entitlement to access it in accordance with the end user license agreement.

imagine if ownership of stuff you bought fair and square can never be taken away from you

THAT'S what we could have had

instead of this fucking bullshit.

[-] Natanael@slrpnk.net 0 points 6 months ago

All such copyright licenses are rooted in local jurisdictional law, so your country's copyright office should be the authority because anything else means the courts can tell you that your on-chain transactions are invalid

[-] trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I feel like here you get to the NFT problem of having proof of ownership of something doesn't mean much when that thing is being hosted on servers you don't control

so if you have an entry with a licence for a steam game, and steam gets closed, you are out of luck

[-] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 0 points 6 months ago

imagine if, for instance, you buy a video game through a digital distributor like steam but then the store goes out of business and no longer exists to serve you a copy or recognize the sale, but on this massively distributed and decentralized database you can prove that you did indeed compensate the developers of that software and thereby legally acquire entitlement to access it in accordance with the end user license agreement.

What you're arguing for is forcing the distributor to distribute in perpetuity, which has nothing to do with how you show ownership of your license.

Right now, I can show steam I've purchased, say Delistopolis, and they will agree I am indeed perfectly allowed to have and play it. But they are not required to provide me with a copy.

A blockchain system will not solve this.

load more comments (3 replies)
[-] BakerBagel@midwest.social 0 points 6 months ago

NFT's don't show you have proof of ownership of anything other than the NFT. Think of all the people who got their metamask account hacked and lost all their apes with zero recourse.

Why would anyone want anything required for daily life attached to something so insecure and irreversible as that?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (10 replies)
[-] buried_treasure@feddit.uk 0 points 6 months ago

Blockchain has been around as a technology for nearly two decades. If financial institutions thought it could help them you can bet they would be all-in on it by now. As it is, blockchain has no significant advantages over traditional financial ledger systems, so what incentive is there for them to use it.

It's not something new or cutting edge any more, just waiting for a bright spark to discover the technology and put it to use.

[-] S410@kbin.social 0 points 6 months ago

Well, why would banks replace the system which allows them to charge fees for every other interaction with their services? A blockain solution would allow multiple different banks (and, possibly, even regular people) to access the data with no middlemen, and, therefore, no fees. Or, well, no fees that directly end up in the bank's pockets as profit, that is.

Getting rid of that is bad for business. So, unless something magical happens and the EU, for example, pass a law requiring the banks to switch to a more de-centralized, more fair system, it's not going to happen.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] neatchee@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Yeah I imagine they probably would.

Maybe do a simple Google search next time? They ARE using it. It's getting a ton of investment from them.

Also it's over three decades. Bitcoin wasn't the first. They just popularized a specific type of blockchain

So much ignorance on display in this thread. Y'all are amazingly confidently incorrect

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 0 points 6 months ago

Blockchain is only potentially useful if there’s no single entity that can be trusted. If banks can’t even trust themselves to manage their own internal ledgers, they have much bigger problems to deal with.

[-] TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

Trustless systems aren’t a bad thing that has to step in when the good thing fails. Trustless systems are inherently better because you don’t have to trust a bank (or anyone for that matter).

Additionally, ledgers can be gamed/corrupted/falsified. This is significantly more complex (bordering on impossible) on the blockchain.

https://youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4

[-] PipedLinkBot@feddit.rocks 0 points 6 months ago

Here is an alternative Piped link(s):

https://piped.video/bBC-nXj3Ng4

Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.

I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 0 points 6 months ago

There are often easier, more reliable, and far cheaper ways to achieve the same things without using a blockchain. Some of the principles are even used in normal web browsing to ensure secure untampered connections.

Blockchain just solves a subproblem that only arises when there’s no appointed central entity.

[-] Blaiz0r@lemmy.ml 0 points 6 months ago

Blockchains aren't hard, unreliable or expensive

[-] NoiseColor@startrek.website 0 points 6 months ago

Cryptocurrency Ledgers can be corrupted?

[-] TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 0 points 6 months ago

I was hedging against a particularly snarky commenter showing up. You can do a 51% attack and theoretically corrupt it. In practice, that’s much more difficult.

load more comments (2 replies)
[-] hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 6 months ago

That's the thing, they shouldn't trust a single source of assumed truth. If the single source is tampered with, there's nothing to compare to.

Removing the need to trust a single entity is just a great security feature

[-] Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 0 points 6 months ago

You can implement public or semi public ledgers without Blockchain. That's what banks are doing already by sending huge CSV files internally and externally. Blockchain is not a technology of zero trust. It's close to the opposite. You trust a few peers and blindly trust everyone they trust. That way you trust a network that you know nothing about and if the network decides on a common truth that you are convinced is incorrect, there is nothing you can do about it. The consensus always wins and there is no single entity to complain to and get it fixed. This is great for making sure that many actors need to be bad actors in order to have the whole system fail. It's bad if you don't trust anyone and want to make sure that your standards are always observed. From a technology standpoint I love the concept of Blockchain. But use cases that are not forced are few and far apart. Too few for the amount of hype it receives.

[-] magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 0 points 6 months ago

If the bank can’t even trust themselves then there’s no point in having the bank at all.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (57 replies)
this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
1 points (100.0% liked)

Lemmy Shitpost

26233 readers
271 users here now

Welcome to Lemmy Shitpost. Here you can shitpost to your hearts content.

Anything and everything goes. Memes, Jokes, Vents and Banter. Though we still have to comply with lemmy.world instance rules. So behave!


Rules:

1. Be Respectful


Refrain from using harmful language pertaining to a protected characteristic: e.g. race, gender, sexuality, disability or religion.

Refrain from being argumentative when responding or commenting to posts/replies. Personal attacks are not welcome here.

...


2. No Illegal Content


Content that violates the law. Any post/comment found to be in breach of common law will be removed and given to the authorities if required.

That means:

-No promoting violence/threats against any individuals

-No CSA content or Revenge Porn

-No sharing private/personal information (Doxxing)

...


3. No Spam


Posting the same post, no matter the intent is against the rules.

-If you have posted content, please refrain from re-posting said content within this community.

-Do not spam posts with intent to harass, annoy, bully, advertise, scam or harm this community.

-No posting Scams/Advertisements/Phishing Links/IP Grabbers

-No Bots, Bots will be banned from the community.

...


4. No Porn/ExplicitContent


-Do not post explicit content. Lemmy.World is not the instance for NSFW content.

-Do not post Gore or Shock Content.

...


5. No Enciting Harassment,Brigading, Doxxing or Witch Hunts


-Do not Brigade other Communities

-No calls to action against other communities/users within Lemmy or outside of Lemmy.

-No Witch Hunts against users/communities.

-No content that harasses members within or outside of the community.

...


6. NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.


-Content that is NSFW should be behind NSFW tags.

-Content that might be distressing should be kept behind NSFW tags.

...

If you see content that is a breach of the rules, please flag and report the comment and a moderator will take action where they can.


Also check out:

Partnered Communities:

1.Memes

2.Lemmy Review

3.Mildly Infuriating

4.Lemmy Be Wholesome

5.No Stupid Questions

6.You Should Know

7.Comedy Heaven

8.Credible Defense

9.Ten Forward

10.LinuxMemes (Linux themed memes)


Reach out to

All communities included on the sidebar are to be made in compliance with the instance rules. Striker

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS