do you guys think big tech is losing sleep over blockchain?

[zombiepixel]

their is good reason to believe that big tech might be crippled after the eminent rise of blockchain based applications that will subsequently make centralized servers and centralized data almost obsolete and untrustworthy. i really want to hear your opinions about this technology and your own projections of what tech will look like in the near future.

[WereCatf]

9 minutes ago, zombiepixel said:

their is good reason to believe that big tech might be crippled after the eminent rise of blockchain based applications that will subsequently make centralized servers and centralized data almost obsolete and untrustworthy

No, there isn't. It's all a load of bullshit and hot air.

[zombiepixel]

6 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

No, there isn't. It's all a load of bullshit and hot air.

nope. you are wrong.

[Haro]

2 minutes ago, zombiepixel said:

nope. you are wrong.

Actually you are not correct @WereCatf is 

It's all really bullshit

Edited June 13, 2020 by TofuHaroto

[Eigenvektor]

Just now, zombiepixel said:

nope. you are wrong.

Strong argument, right there. Why do you think that is wrong? What does blockchain have going for it that would render every other application obsolete?

 

At best, blockchain is a new form of trust model that could maybe supplement existing encryption etc. But it would not render the applications themselves obsolete. So, if anything, companies would include it in their product to make it more secure. But the product itself isn't made obsolete by that.

[WereCatf]

1 minute ago, zombiepixel said:

nope. you are wrong.

Go ahead and explain. What services could be replaced with blockchain-tech and how would it benefit anyone? Web-servers? No, blockchain's entire point is transaction-history, which is entirely fucking irrelevant when it comes to running websites. Speed? No, regular services are WAY faster. Email? Blockchain-tech wouldn't prevent spam or phishing or anything like that, it'd just slow legit mail down.

[imreloadin]

Just now, WereCatf said:

What services could be replaced with blockchain-tech and how would it benefit anyone?

Open your mind bruh...blockchain burgers are the future!!!

[Haro]

Just now, imreloadin said:

Open your mind bruh...blockchain burgers are the future!!!

Ah yes that's a business that is Worth looking at 

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, imreloadin said:

Open your mind bruh...blockchain burgers are the future!!!

Hm, I wouldn't even mind some blocky burgers right now!

[lewdicrous]

42 minutes ago, zombiepixel said:

nope. you are wrong.

Read this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/07/03/big-blockchain-the-50-largest-public-companies-exploring-blockchain/#191013bd2b5b

[WereCatf]

2 minutes ago, lewdicrous said:

Read this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/07/03/big-blockchain-the-50-largest-public-companies-exploring-blockchain/#191013bd2b5b

Not directly a reply to you, but more of a clarification to anyone stumbling upon this thread:

 

If one takes a look at that list there, a good handful of those are just about various cryptocoins, so they're irrelevant to this conversation; OP's claim was that blockchain will replace pre-existing, centralized services. The rest are....well, as one can see, all about tracking changes in taxes/inventory/etc., and that was my whole point earlier: blockchain-tech is all about the transaction-history, that's the whole selling-point of it, and the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of public-facing, Internet-accessible services has zero benefit from something like that or they are already using something much better suited to the task.

 

One could use blockchain-stuff for e.g. tracking changes to source-code, but...git, subversion etc. are far better choices for that as they are purpose-made solutions. Websites? Do you really have any use for having access to a cryptographically-verifiable history of changes to a website's contents, for example? No? Yeah, you don't. Streaming-services? Again, there's nothing to be gained on the consumer-side. On the service-provider's side, they could use it for tracking changes to their catalogue and payments and the likes, but...that wouldn't make the service decentralized or anything, so again, blockchain-stuff would be both irrelevant and invisible to consumer-side.

 

There are uses for it, but it's not a magic bullet, it cannot replace centralized services, and it certainly won't do jack shit for most stuff people care about. If someone is peddling a rosy future made of blockchain, they're most likely trying to sell something, they've invested in something that tries to sell something, or they're just simply running a scam.

[mr moose]

3 minutes ago, WereCatf said:

Not directly a reply to you, but more of a clarification to anyone stumbling upon this thread:

 

If one takes a look at that list there, a good handful of those are just about various cryptocoins, so they're irrelevant to this conversation; OP's claim was that blockchain will replace pre-existing, centralized services. The rest are....well, as one can see, all about tracking changes in taxes/inventory/etc., and that was my whole point earlier: blockchain-tech is all about the transaction-history, that's the whole selling-point of it, and the VAST, VAST MAJORITY of public-facing, Internet-accessible services has zero benefit from something like that or they are already using something much better suited to the task.

 

One could use blockchain-stuff for e.g. tracking changes to source-code, but...git, subversion etc. are far better choices for that as they are purpose-made solutions. Websites? Do you really have any use for having access to a cryptographically-verifiable history of changes to a website's contents, for example? No? Yeah, you don't. Streaming-services? Again, there's nothing to be gained on the consumer-side. On the service-provider's side, they could use it for tracking changes to their catalogue and payments and the likes, but...that wouldn't make the service decentralized or anything, so again, blockchain-stuff would be both irrelevant and invisible to consumer-side.

 

There are uses for it, but it's not a magic bullet, it cannot replace centralized services, and it certainly won't do jack shit for most stuff people care about. If someone is peddling a rosy future made of blockchain, they're most likely trying to sell something, they've invested in something that tries to sell something, or they're just simply running a scam.

I've often thought it would be good for archiving government material, news articles, ads, corporate press releases etc.  Pretty hard to deny your actions when you can't delete or edit them and they are there for everyone to see without FOI hoops to jump through.

 

 

But as far as it being used to actually replace computational services you are dead right,  is not going to happen.

 

 

[Eigenvektor]

4 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I've often thought it would be good for archiving government material, news articles, ads, corporate press releases etc.  Pretty hard to deny your actions when you can't delete or edit them and they are there for everyone to see without FOI hoops to jump through.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the type of government that needs this type of undeniable history is exactly the type of government that would never start to keep it in the first place. Nothing prevents reports from being falsified before they are added to the archive and then you have no way of correcting them either.

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I think the type of government that needs this type of undeniable history is exactly the type of government that would never start to keep it in the first place.

You're right.  But having something that anyone can validate gives the average citizen more confidence int he system.

 

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

 

Nothing prevents reports from being falsified before they are added to the archive and then you have no way of correcting them either.

But when you find out it is wrong and fudged they can't deny the report they made, they have no way to edit it after the fact. 

 

Small assurances in a world where doubt is easy to create.

[Eigenvektor]

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

You're right.  But having something that anyone can validate gives the average citizen more confidence int he system.

Doesn't the blockchain require consensus before something is added into the ledger? For e.g. Bitcoin that is easy, because it is based on undeniable mathematical proof, no manual steps required. But you can't really "proof" a historical event before adding it into your ledger. I'd say it may be possible in theory but pretty much impossible to do in a practical sense. How can you validate that a record, once made, is the real event that took place without additional, independent, outside sources?

 

23 minutes ago, mr moose said:

But when you find out it is wrong and fudged they can't deny the report they made, they have no way to edit it after the fact. Small assurances in a world where doubt is easy to create.

The same can already be done with Git. When you alter an old commit, everyone else who has a copy of the repository still has the original commit. Your changes aren't going to make it into their copy without their explicit consent. That's not going to help you if the government starts to enforce their version of the truth with superior firepower. And what if you have hundreds of versions of a commit in as many repositories?

[mr moose]

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

Doesn't the blockchain require consensus before something is added into the ledger? For e.g. Bitcoin that is easy, because it is based on undeniable mathematical proof, no manual steps required. But you can't really "proof" a historical event before adding it into your ledger. I'd say it may be possible in theory but pretty much impossible to do in a practical sense. How can you validate that a record, once made, is the real event that took place without additional, independent, outside sources?

Harvard university wrote an article on the future of blockchain for use in corporate contracts, I assume it would be use din a similar sense.

1 minute ago, Eigenvektor said:

The same can already be done with Git. When you alter an old commit, everyone else who has a copy of the repository still has the original commit. Your changes aren't going to make it into their copy without their explicit consent. That's not going to help you if the government starts to enforce their version of the truth with superior firepower. And what if you have hundreds of versions of a commit in as many repositories?

 

Ahh yes,  but that model requires that many people (enough for validation) keep a copy of everything, imagine trying to convince people to keep all the transcripts of parliament and emails to or from parliament hosted locally just in case something needs to be checked.  The way I see it with block chain the records can be kept online as they are now and easily searched but with the added confidence of blockchain security.   As it is with other stuff (private enterprise, ads,news etc) it would be very difficult in any other form to verify the integrity of the archive without have several people keep copies.   Imagine a central resource like the national library (which already has archived scans of newspapers etc) to hold all the information that is obtainable under FOI but freely and easily accessible by the public with block chain integrity? 

 

 

To the thread:

I am sure there are a lot of things that aren't perfect with my idea,  but the basic concept of being able to access all that information (and also be able to validate it hasn't been tampered with) without the jumping through bureaucratic hoops and having politicians decide what is redacted (because it became sensitive for them) is a big bonus to transparency and democracy.

[Eigenvektor]

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Ahh yes,  but that model requires that many people (enough for validation) keep a copy of everything,

Isn't the same true for the blockchain as well? You don't need a copy of everything to detect manipulation, git commit hash codes are enough. You can't modify a commit without changing its hash and the hashes of all subsequent commits. You still need a copy if you want to know how stuff was altered. How does the blockchain solve this?

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

imagine trying to convince people to keep all the transcripts of parliament and emails to or from parliament hosted locally just in case something needs to be checked.  The way I see it with block chain the records can be kept online as they are now and easily searched but with the added confidence of blockchain security.

What form of security does a centralized copy of a blockchain add to the game here that a central git repository doesn't already have?

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

As it is with other stuff (private enterprise, ads,news etc) it would be very difficult in any other form to verify the integrity of the archive without have several people keep copies. Imagine a central resource like the national library (which already has archived scans of newspapers etc) to hold all the information that is obtainable under FOI but freely and easily accessible by the public with block chain integrity?

Why would the information be freely accessible simply because it is stored in a blockchain? If you require a FOI request right now to access an archive, why would that requirement be dropped simply because the information is stored in a different format? What is preventing governments from hosting all of their records online right now?

 

And it doesn't really alleviate my initial concern: How do you know the initial record that was archived is the actual truth?

6 minutes ago, mr moose said:

I am sure there are a lot of things that aren't perfect with my idea,  but the basic concept of being able to access all that information (and also be able to validate it hasn't been tampered with) without the jumping through bureaucratic hoops and having politicians decide what is redacted (because it became sensitive for them) is a big bonus to transparency and democracy.

Storing stuff in a blockchain doesn't remove the bureaucratic hoops unless it is decentralized to begin with. If there's a single source of the truth (i.e. central archive) there's nothing preventing a government from requiring the same hoops as they do now.

[AngryBeaver]

5 hours ago, lewdicrous said:

Read this.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeldelcastillo/2018/07/03/big-blockchain-the-50-largest-public-companies-exploring-blockchain/#191013bd2b5b

Strange I work for a company that is using a blockchain model for some of our services/products and we technically should be at the top of that list. 

 

I think the OP is just confused on how it is implemented. So when you see blockchain it doesn't mean it works just like cryptocurrency, which is a pretty popular assumption, it can be as simple as just the way data is being transferred, secured, and stored.

[A_Mediocre_Kangaroo_Farmer]

This OP is just baiting I think.

[Lurick]

Blockchain can and does have a place for a lot of things but to say companies are going to disappear and lose sleep over it is absurd. It's great for traceability, verification, and many applications and will almost certainly be integrated into existing technologies by existing companies but it in no way is going to make any company disappear.

[Arika]

sounds like to me you don't actually understand blockchain. like at all. it's not some magical piece of technology like a lot of people try to make it out to be. it has it's place, but it's not a replacement for conventional services.

[lewdicrous]

2 hours ago, AngryBeaver said:

Strange I work for a company that is using a blockchain model for some of our services/products and we technically should be at the top of that list. 

It's a 2 year old list, so it could be outdated, or it's just not really comprehensive. 

 

It was meant to show OP that there are major companies that use blockchain and they're not afraid of the technology. 

[zombiepixel]

• digital identity
• cloud computing
• private VPNs
• tokenized assets
• supply chain managment
• trustless data store

what are your thoughts on these services that are going to be built on the blockchain?

 

and no i am not baiting. im not hear to sell anything.

[zombiepixel]

when i say that big tech is going to get affected by blockchain what i mean is that they provide a service right now that will get heavily affect in the future. im referring to the massive industry of cloud computing. the problem we are facing right now is that we have a heavy reliance on big tech like google, amazon, and microsoft to provide centralized computing services like google cloud, aws, and azure. we have to put trust in them to provide a reasonable price, along with not selling the data they have collected. we are starting to see a monopoly in this industry due to the  the consolidation of the industry. 

 

With blockchain, we can remove the need for trust and break up the industry so that everyone can participate. the cost of cloud computing will most likely be lower due to not having a third party and most importantly everyone will be able to participate and get rewarded for doing so.

 

ask yourself this, when you made your LTT account what was required? an email right? what does that email serve as? a digital identity. one that is hosted by a centralized server for a centralized company. with blockchain we wont need that company anymore. you will be able to create an account for any service with ur blockchain identifier instead of an email. one of the biggest problems we face right now is the point of failure that an email service creates. all accounts made under an email can be compromised if that email is compromised. but with blockchain we can eliminate that threat. 

no it is not hot air. this tech does track transactions but everything cane become a transaction on the internet if you think about it.

 

EVERY ASSET that you can think off will become tokenized. and proof of ownership will 100% move to blockchain. 

 

corporate and personal legal settlements will become instantaneous through smart contracts. meaning every legal interaction will be represented through a smart contract. owning a house and a mortgage will be moved to the blockchain.

 

what is the most important thing i want you guys to think about in this post is the usecases of the blockchain and not about the tokens themselves. although it is a very heavily tied topic to blockchain, tokens are NOT the blockchain. 

[Haro]

Just now, zombiepixel said:

we have to put trust in them to provide a reasonable price, along with not selling the data they have collected. we are starting to see a monopoly in this industry due to the  the consolidation of the industry. 

How do you know that block chain will provide that ? Lol 

I mean at this point if you like it or not your data is somewhere on the internet