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
Comment on Please Stop
magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 3 months agoBlockchain 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.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
Lichtblitz@discuss.tchncs.de 3 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 3 months ago
If the bank can’t even trust themselves then there’s no point in having the bank at all.
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 months ago
You really don’t get it? Trust is a problem. Anyone, or anything, can and will fail or be compromised.
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 3 months ago
so I put my trust in software instead. And by extension its developers. You’re saying of all people, we should trust some programmers above all else. You know, the “move fast and break things” guys.
As a programmer myself, this thought is both terrifying and hilarious.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 3 months ago
Blockchains is a tool for moving trust around in a decentralized network, not a tool for removing it.
kibiz0r@midwest.social 3 months ago
Security starts with trust.
kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 3 months ago
guys they are putting micro chips in the cheese and using block chains to track the micro chips businessinsider.com/edible-microchips-on-parmigia…
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 3 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.
youtu.be/bBC-nXj3Ng4
magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 3 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 3 months ago
Blockchains aren’t hard, unreliable or expensive
NoiseColor@startrek.website 3 months ago
Cryptocurrency Ledgers can be corrupted?
TragicNotCute@lemmy.world 3 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.
nom345@sopuli.xyz 3 months ago
You dont need 51% attack to corrupt a ledger. Just enter incorrect info and the ledger is wrong. Not a damn thing a blockchain can do about that. Same issue is with any trustless system where you have to trust someone to input the correct info/do the agreed thing/ship the ordered physical item.