You must log in or register to comment.
deleted by creator
That’s the one I use for prison stuff right? You know spare key, toothbrush, razor, cellphone the basics so you still got room to spare.
Your prison wallet is closer to porn than to blockchain, I suppose.
You can downvote this because you’re mad that blockchain exists, for those who don’t know the actual real life use case: Bitcoin has been around for 15 years, it is a blockchain. It has a real life use case.
I can send money, with my android phone, from my couch, in my underwear, to anybody else on planet earth who also has a phone and a halfway reliable internet connection. The transaction is not only sent, but actually settles, in under a second with Bitcoin lightning. And I pay pennies in fees. No going to the bank, no bank holidays, no paying wire fees or making sure their bank can talk to my bank. It’s just simple and instant and it works. It doesn’t matter if they are a dissident or if their country doesn’t allow women to own bank accounts, the transaction goes through anyways. In many countries, their app can also instantly convert that BTC into the currency of their choice and deposit it to their bank account. That’s assuming they have access to stable banking infrastructure, which billions of people do not.
Bitcoin has delivered on its promise of being a currency with a capped supply (21 million coins) and transaction system consistently for 15 years without a single hack, without a single hour of downtime, without a single hiccup. It just works.
You can argue that Bitcoin isn’t better than <insert local currency and transmission system>. You can argue that there are “better” solutions. But it has a clear use case. I use it on a daily basis and it has a fifteen year trend of continued growth whether you are looking at total market cap (bigger than Sweden’s GDP), number of nodes, number of transactions, whatever.
Most everything negative you’ve heard about Bitcoin is either hyperbolic or about other crypto. FTX wasn’t Bitcoin. Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin. For more information, FAQs, and myth-busting, check out http://bitcoin.rocks
Not even sure why I’m bothering replying to this bot, but guess misinformation should not be left alone
- It’s not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It’s not even clear how many confirmations are enough.
- It’s only instant if you use the lightning network. Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin. If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?
- fees are huge and will only increase in the future.
I’m not a bot, I’m just an idiot.
It’s not instant it takes a long time until enough confirmations have been done. It’s not even clear how many confirmations are enough.
You’re thinking of main chain (which takes 10 minutes for the next block), though I would take a zero-conf transaction in any situation that isn’t moving more money than a day’s labor. A single confirmation means it made it into the next block which should be plenty for 99% of situations. If you’re selling your house, maybe a wait a 2-3 blocks to be sure. Lightning is instant and uses main chain for security but does settlement/transaction data off-chain.
Lightning network is literally a traditional bank transaction mechanism on top of bitcoin.
It’s not, you don’t need a bank to use it. Banks don’t settle instantly, banks have chargebacks, banks required six forms of ID, banks can’t reach some places, banks may discriminate. Lightning is Bitcoin. You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning, and when you close your channel, you get the appropriate amount of BTC back. You can run a lightning node on a phone, a “routing” node on a raspberry pi, it’s just as decentralized and trustless as the main chain is. You can open a channel directly w the person you’re transacting with or you can forward the transaction through other channels/nodes, all trustlessly, all instantly, all automatically. Nobody ever has custody of the funds aside from you and your intended recipient. There’s no central custodian (like a bank) you have to trust.
If you are arguing for using lightning transactions, what is the point of bitcoin in the first place?
Main chain and lightning have different use cases. Use main chain for long-term storage of funds or large transactions. Use lightning for everyday spending. Main chain secures lightning transactions. Main chain is layer one, lightning is layer two, it’s possible there will be more layers, just like SMTP is built on TCP which is built on Ethernet or whatever.
fees are huge and will only increase in the future.
Main chain fees are around $1.50 for the next block, which is still cheaper than a bank wire or other equivalent payment methods in many situations. You’re right though, they are expected to increase as adoption increases, but lightning has scaled that available blockspace several orders of magnitude. Lightning fees are <1% in almost all instances and aren’t expected to increase since they are not tied directly to main chain fees and no mining is required. A lightning transaction uses about as much CPU power as sending an e-mail. A single main chain transaction can open a lightning channel. You can have billions of transactions inside a lightning channel.
I apologize, it looked like copy pasta.
You lock up BTC in a lightning channel, you can then send that BTC to anybody via lightning,
You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.
It’s fair, I assume a lot of people are bots too, but I like lemmy because it’s mostly not bots :).
You can not send the BTC to just about anybody. Only to people with whom you have a channel open. If you want to send to anybody you need to hop through other channels using middlemen. That sounds very similar to the function of a bank.
You are right, if you want to send directly from your wallet to another user’s wallet with no middlemen, you need to have a channel open with that user, which you totally can and will save you on fees in the long-term if you transact with that person frequently. But I don’t do this because it’s un-necessary, you can also send funds to any other person on lightning via these middlemen. The middlemen don’t have custody of the funds, they can’t block/reverse/do anything with the transaction aside from just forward it along. You can choose who those “middlemen” are, they are usually selected based on the lowest expected fee. They route data around, if they are banks, then so are other Bitcoin nodes you connect to on main chain. But we don’t think of them as banks right? They just relay data around and they’re decentralized. You are right that they share a similar function of routing payments, the difference is in how they do that and who controls what parts of that process. Banks have immense power over your funds. Lightning nodes you route a payment through have none and anybody can run one.
it would be nice if the price of bitcoin was stable enough that when I sent $100 to somebody it wouldn’t be a gamble whether what they actually received was double or half that
It is. Lightning transactions confirm in under a second, you can sell those instantly via an exchange. The price is not that unstable and already more stable than many national currencies. You can guarantee that they receive the same amount of BTC.
I don’t care about amount of BTC, I care about amount of dollars. It may also surprise you to learn that I don’t care about countries where the currency is so unstable that a currency that can double in value in the space of a few months has it beat.
If bitcoin is going to become usable as a currency, even in niche circles, it has two problems to solve: energy use (three quarters of a megawatt hour per transaction, according to Forbes!) and conversion stability. I don’t want keeping money in my wallet to be a high risk investment.
The last time I had to send 30 Euro to someone, I had to pay 5 Euro for gas fees. It used to be even worse. Your statements are bullshit, we all know what the usual use cases are (other than speculation)
5 Euros seems like a pretty standard fee for a Bitcoin transfer, which is insanely cheap for large transfers. Your 30 Euro transaction is more suitable for the lightning network, which handles off-chain transactions for much lower fees. The person you were responding to was specifically talking about the lightning network.
Crypto coins collapsing or people being rugged? Not Bitcoin.
Bitcoin has collapsed like three times in the last like 7 years dawg.
But it has a clear use case.
Sure, I suppose, if you count things like “destroying the environment” and “lining Nvidia’s pockets” as “use cases”.
Hey, you forgot being the world’s slowest payment processor
and one of the world’s most scammer-friendly and least-anonymous
Bitcoin has collapsed like three times in the last like 7 years dawg.
If you bought 1 BTC 15 years ago, you still have 1 BTC. It has not collapsed. The price relative to USD has collapsed a few times, but the average trend is growth. Bitcoin does not guarantee any price relative to any other currency, because it can’t, all it can guarantee is a stable supply of currency. The USD, in that time period, has lost >20% of its purchasing power as well, so the USD also “crashed”.
I used to suck dick for blockcain…still do… but I used to too
Miss you, Mitch.
My fake plants died because I did not pretend to water them.
I wonder how many sites will bother checking for Spanish pornpasses. Seems they’re just playing people and waiting for the inevitable, “Turns out the Internet isn’t respecting our kids, we need to ratchet up the control. We tried to give you a good deal though, right?”
Most will just block themselves there like pornhub does in the states that require checking IDs in the US.
That’s the insidious part of all this - the government will set up captive portals which require you to verify yourself to get outside the federal network. It will start with porn, then it will be VPNs, and so on. This is just a very convenient excuse to establish the infrastructure and process framework which will eventually be used to kill the open internet by a million cuts.
They will not have to
Spain did what
The did whhhhat with the trains?!
España creó un pasaporte blockchain para ver por alguna razón, porque supongo que los tiddies ponen nerviosas a algunas personas.
Source: Sé dónde está la biblioteca.
me llamo t-bone la arana discoteca
Muy bien. Soy el langostino de los sueños.
¿Qué?
This could be the right time to use an interrobang.
If so, it was a lucky guess.
interrobang.
I know it’s a real thing, but I still think of a sexy FBI agent every time I see “interrobang”
I’ve never used one in my life, but I feel like it would have more impact in a language with writing rules such as Spanish’s.
And also the sexy agent thing.
⸘Que‽
Por que: ¿Que?
Ahora esperemos que Porn Hub anuncie que no va a dar servicio en España como tantos estados Americanos que han hecho lo mismo.
Mi queso es su queso
One of the things blockchain could do is become a digital proof of ownership, augmenting or replacing things like property deeds and car titles. We already agree that a written record of ownership of such things is legally binding (even if the writing is stored digitally), but transfer of that ownership to another person is still a very manual process. Imagine an NFT that represents ownership of your house, and when you want to sell your house, you transfer that NFT to someone else’s custody - adding their ownership information to it. It would record the entire chain of ownership, and specific details about the piece of property involved.
And who would the largest nodes on that blockchain be? The banks? Who could say and do whatever they conspired since they command >50% of the computing power and/or value?
The average person isn’t going to build a fucking blockchain node just to keep the deed to their house.
“Grandma, please you need to fill your basement with these ASICs or else script kiddies will steal your house”
That’s not how that works.
NFT is issued determining ownership to a property. Property sells, another NFT is issued, tied to the original one to maintain a chain of ownership. Issuance of a second NFT for a sale to a new owner would depend on authorization by the previous NFT holder. Lienholder information could also be stored, and linked to a mortgage NFT with payment history.
The “NF” part of that stands for “non-fungible.” As in, once created, cannot be changed.
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
The whole non-fungible part can be a problem, not a solution. It very, very rarely happens that ownership of a property is contested. It happens quite often that a mistake is made during a property transfer/sale that needs to be corrected. How do NFTs deal with this, and are they a solution to a non-issue?
What happens if a mistake was made and an NFT is erroneously issued (for example to the wrong person)?
That person has it now. They mjght volountarily be willing to send it back with another transactions or the courts could force them to do so (as in give fines, request keys, send to prison, or just have the government own and ooerate all the wallet keys and simulate transactions eith blockchain just as the technology used in a very janky way)
What happens if the owner dies? How is the NFT transferred then?
Similarily, either the government does all the transactions with ‘your’ keys for you, or you write down the keys in your will and have someone of trust (e.g. a lawyer) do the partitioning/transactions part in your stead.
Who checks that the original NFT was issued correctly?
The seller and buyer beforehand, mostly
What about properties that are split? What happens if the split isn’t represented in the NFT correctly (e.g. due to an error)?
Rebalance by having everone affected send their portions for redistribution to a trusted entity
As you’ve said yourself, NFTs seem wholly unsuited for keeping track of general ownership on a large scale. All the problems do have solutions, but they’re either complicated for the owners or it’s someone else controlling people’s keys, defeating the entire point.
See that’s the thing. Not being able to correct transaction errors is a feature of blockchain. I’d go as far as saying it’s the #1 feature of the majority of crypto that brings in all the scammers.
Personally I prefer my money being insured and controlled by the government.
They’re not making a technical argument but a practical one.
Who ever owns the chain is the ACTUAL owner of the NFTs. Who ever owns the physical hardware is the ACTUAL controller of the chain.
The problem with NFTs is … they only solve theoretical problems, not problems in the real world, where it ALWAYS takes agreement and cooperation for anything to ACTUALLY function and serve a purpose.
Blockchains have already proven to be no more secure than a properly designed normal database, and are ALWAYS going to take more electricity, so…they continue to be nothing but a toy and a canary for the gullible tech bro.
Not to mention, at scale, big things like cars and houses are sold a ton every single day…
Having to use all that electricity to mint an NFT every single time, not to mention cases mentioned above like “Oops got it wrong”, yikes…
Would that cost more electricity than hypothetically shifting all vehicles to electric? Now I’m curious haha.
I mean, you can use other systems besides cryptographic proof-of-work to determine legitimacy of stakeholders of a blockchain. It doesn’t necessarily have to waste power.
That being said, none of the other alternatives are really viable either. Proof-of-stake? So the “richest” people on the chain control all the money? Sounds like we just reinvented the late-stage-capitalism we already have.
Nah, movement is a ton of energy be it gas or electric. Electric vehicles are still the future for the simple fact that they replace something even less economical or long term.
NFTs replace nothing. Not with an improved version, anyways.
Without law enforcement, which is centralized anyway, your documented ownership is worthless. So if the state or a similar centralized real life organization, whiches existence people agree on, is needed to grant and enforce that ownership, blockchain is unnecessary. They can instead just store that shit in a database.
It could. It may or may not. I agree decentralization is a good thing, but do governments agree as well? First of all, governments are very resistant to change if that doesn’t play into their interests (real or percieved like this privacy violation). Using a traditional database to keep track of ownership seems cheaper (since they already do it) but most of all simpler. I’m not too familiar with the way blockchain functions so I may be wrong, but say someone wants to sell a car. In the current state of most countries you just draw up a paper or fill out a form, maybe get it notarized and pay taxes. A database seems flexible enough that if your sale didn’t get logged and the buyer got pulled over and questioned, they could provide the contract and clear up any questions about ownership. Or say the ownership was stripped as part of a court order. If it was a database, then changing the records is simple, but with blockchain the court would either have to get you to transfer the ownership volountarily, force you to disclose your keys or have some mechnism of forcing a transaction from the requester account (which as I understand it seems what blockchain is here to stop abd a core part of the specification). Alternatively the government just uses blockchain instead of a database, managing all the keys, wallets and identities (as in they have everyone’s keys and do all the transactions) which is the same level of centralization as a database, but with extra steps.
Ownership was (and is) a social contract, and a flexible one at that. Things get gifted volountarily, sold, taken away lawfully and inherited in a single jurisdiction by the thousands daily, and not all of these are well documented. Blockchain seems very limited in what it can do flexibility-wise which makes it unsuitable for keeping track of ownership, and that’s not taking into account that either everyone would have to actively use the blockchain for their sales and be familiar with the technology (decentralized) or having all the wallet keys operated by the government (defeating any useful feature of the blockchain for citizens). Adding blockchain into the mix will just complicate the transfer process and centralize it (as in we either do all validation on the blockchain or none), and with the fact that all the transfer history is centralised in the blockchain (despite it being decentralised in storage, it’s still explicitly stored and accessible) it would serve as just another venue of privacy violation and opression.
Maybe blockchain could be useful for things like, say carbon credits, or similar government-issued ‘currency’, but I don’t see it applicable to validating general ownership on a large scale for the general population, ever. The ‘digital Euro’ proposal, also being blessed by the buzzword Blockchain seems very distopian to me as well. Here, with currency being used I can see how it would be applicable in the real world (instead of heavily unstandardised land deeds, sales contracts and other proofs of ownership you have strictly defined currency units), but this also seems like a gross privacy violation as the government (and maybe anyone) can see where you got your money and where you’re spending it down to the cent.
Do they need blockchain for it though?
No. This won’t work any better, either. Keeping anonymous porn off the internet is like trying to prevent kids from fooling around with sex by not telling them about sex.
Unless you’re removing their genitals, they’re GOING to figure it out. The situation only gets worse with more ignorance and more control.
Children almost infinite free time, creative mind and bored. They will find what they want to find.
Then tell them to not do X, they gonna put ALL their energy to do X. Cannot stop them, only work with them.
Just tell them not to do Y then, problem solved.
True dat. I had a reasonable family safe network, and certain things blocked. My daughter was watching some regular movies on a shady website. Me: how did you access that, and doesn’t that need an IP in the US? Her yep, I wanted to catch up on episodes so I setup a proxy server. Me: blink blink OK. I was too glad she learned proxy server setup on her own, to suggest she not access that site.
Which is exactly why this is a stupid idea.
Git is a real-life use-case
One of the crucial differences between blockchain and Git is that Git is fully subserviant to humans and anything can be undone by humans.
If your blockchain house title is stolen by a hacker, either the courts (rightfully) aren’t going to put any significance on the state of the blockchain and are going to say “yeah, you still own your house” (in which case what was the point of using blockchain in the first place rather than a SQL database or some such where mistakes and problems and fraud can be undone without cryptographically-hard obstacles in the way) or if in this hypothetical the Libertarian dystopia has progressed to cartoonish extremes, you’re just SOL and lost your house, which just isn’t even remotely realistic.
Git is not a blockchain. Most importantly, it’s not distributed. There’s a singular git server that all git clients for that repository connect to and use as a source of truth.
Counterpoint: it is a chain and there absolutely is not one server.
For each project there is one authoritative instance, one “server” that everyone pushes to. Otherwise you get chaos.
And nobody ever forked a project, and lived happily ever after, then end.
If you want to work with the original project, you have to push to the server that controls the original project.
No you don’t, you can just fork it, add a commit, and walk away, and everyone can decide which one they want to clone
Otherwise you get git. You’re describing svn.
That’s not a git thing though. You can totally have multiple remotes and the remotes are just git repositories themselves. Git is 100% decentralized. There is technically nothing stopping you from having multiple remotes.
That may be how you use it, but that’s not baked into git. See my previous response. There’s a bunch of FUD in this thread for some reason.
People want simple answers, and “blockchain bad” seems to satisfy many
That is patently false. It was developed to help develop the Linux kernel, which famously has multiple decentralized repositories managed by different maintainers.
The fact that most companies use it in a way you describe, with only one central repository, does not mean that git is not distributed.
Git was built specifically to avoid the necessity to have one authoritative server.
I agree it’s not a blockchain, (although it has chain properties) but it is kinda decentralized. By convention projects almost exclusively have a single remote, and by convention that single remote is treated as an ultimate source-of-truth… But you can absolutely have the same repo with multiple remotes defined, and one could establish different schemes to determine which branches on which remotes represent what in terms of “truth”.
I’ve pulled code branches between my computers without publishing to an external server plenty of times. It’s a really useful feature to be able to keep stuff in sync with a version history.
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Distributed-Git-Distributed-Workflows
In contrast with Centralized Version Control Systems (CVCSs), the distributed nature of Git allows you to be far more flexible in how developers collaborate on projects. In centralized systems, every developer is a node working more or less equally with a central hub. In Git, however, every developer is potentially both a node and a hub; that is, every developer can both contribute code to other repositories and maintain a public repository on which others can base their work and which they can contribute to.
Oh no Spain has an “innovative” idea to fuck the internet!
Bad research based on subjective opinion? I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless. It provides a verification method without the use of a centralized system. Are all peer-to-peer systems useless now? Its not to be used as a tool for everything. It will not fix everything. I’d be more interested in research of what happens when reactionary practices are used. Such as using blockchain just because it’s the hot new trend without thoroughly thinking about the consequences of such actions. blockchain = bad / blockchain = good is not good enough, each implementation needs to be studied independently and answers derived from that. Replace blockchain with AI and it’s the same.
I dont see how anyone would see blockchain in itself as useless.
it’s chewing through tremendous amounts of power and water to improve…? what?
I have yet to see the upside.
It’s a way of verification and trust in a system where no one trusts any central authority, but does trust an algorithm. That seems too specific to ever actually be useful. People will end up relying on services or instructions that make the system digestible and usable for them, but as long as they still rely on those giving the instructions, the same problem arises.
And when an example case is brought up, it’s always one central authority that is pushing the idea - and could achieve the same more easily and without power waste using a central server.
I mean, if one party pushes for use of blockchain, you’d just need to trust that specific system (algorithm, network…) and not explicitly the party pushing for it.
I also wouldn’t call it power ‘waste’ since it does useful work - confirmation. It may be more inefficient compared to a centralized authority though. There are other ways of doing confirmations than proof-of-work as well, though each have their own drawbacks - just like a centralized system does,
its ‘decentralized’ copium
Still a use case
HA! you think the pentagon is in control? You think the people responsible for this debacle are actually following orders? These are all absconders and expats who are doing all this garbage. Pentagon is seemingly powerless to stop them.
This posted to the main section, not as a reply.
deleted by creator
Is it Blockchain based though?
It is a shitty porn passport, I’m Spanish, but I didn’t hear that it was Blockchain based.
Why? It needs a centrar register not an uncentralized one.
Yeah, I was just looking through some documentation on it. It says it uses a “digital wallet”. Maybe people are seeing that and thinking that means it’s blockchain-based? I’m not seeing anything more solid claiming there’s any blockchain involved, though. (I’m not 100% certain there isn’t any blockchain involved, though.)
It’s BS either way. Extra super plus plus BS if it’s blockchain-based. But still BS even if there’s no blockchain involved.
A blockchain does not mean decentralized. It means a public ledger where each new item validates the one(s) before it
Not sure why everybody needs a copy of my, I mean, somebody’s porn passport.
