as hostile as people are to block chain due to MFC’s and bad implementations, the technology itself has its use cases. It’s a great solution for information exchange that requires verification and Immutation. This makes them perfect for ledgers or transaction networks.
It’s just there is so much bad PR regarding it everyone just discredits it. Not all of the block chain technologies are massively energy intensive per transaction, it’s just many of the cryptocurrencies use the most intensive one because it’s also arguably the most secure
neatchee@lemmy.world 8 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 inter-branch 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
magic_lobster_party@kbin.run 8 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 8 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
hemko@lemmy.dbzer0.com 8 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
kate@lemmy.uhhoh.com 8 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…
buried_treasure@feddit.uk 8 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.
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 7 months ago
coindesk.com/…/goldman-sachs-bny-mellon-and-other…
neatchee@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Yeah I imagine they probably would.
Maybe so a simple Google search next time? They ARE using it. It’s getting a ton of investment from them.
S410@kbin.social 8 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.
kameecoding@lemmy.world 8 months ago
How is the blockchain different from a read only DB that follows ACID?
Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Blockchains add cryptographic signing and limit actions based on those signatures.
some_designer_dude@lemmy.world 8 months ago
It’s distributed so no single entity can take it down. Among many other possible benefits depending on architecture and infrastructure.
It’s far more complex than coins and NFTs. Blockchain is like a new internet. Coins and NFTs are like those shitty GIFs you used to see everywhere. Evocative of old internet, but not the internet itself.
DaleGribble88@programming.dev 8 months ago
How can you trust that the database is really append only? Blockchain provides a way to verify the state of the database and the ordering of the transactions. Beyond that, not much benefit to be had. However, for certain situations, that is a very big benefit!
Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Replication and verifiable timestamps, which you can add to regular databases too BTW
Blue_Morpho@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Why would you want the computational power of a bank system have anything to do with whether it’s ledger is correct?
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Banks/hackers can manipulate data if they want to. Manipulating data on blockchains in way waaaaay harder.
NoiseColor@startrek.website 8 months ago
How do you see memes like this? Because I see them as lame and sad, especially since we have been seeing them for 10+ years now and they are still the same. But apparently you think blockchain has reasonable uses.
neatchee@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Misguided
HaywardT@lemmy.sdf.org 8 months ago
Damn! You had my up vote until that last sentence.
Draegur@lemm.ee 8 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.
trashgirlfriend@lemmy.world 8 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
BakerBagel@midwest.social 8 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?
Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 8 months ago
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.
aesc@lemmy.sdf.org 8 months ago
Well, if those licenses are entries on the blockchain, they could be transferred on the blockchain. You could sell your game used when you’re bored of playing it. You can’t play it after you sell it but someone else can. Publishers hate resale markets though, when people buy used games they don’t make any money. So they’ll probably never go for this.
Natanael@slrpnk.net 8 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
vrighter@discuss.tchncs.de 8 months ago
blockchains do not do jack shit with reconciliating records.
UraniumBlazer@lemm.ee 8 months ago
Please go and attempt understanding the thing you are talking about before talking about it.
Fedop@slrpnk.net 8 months ago
Walmart seems to have had success here, and logistics is their whole thing.
hbr.org/…/how-walmart-canada-uses-blockchain-to-s…
Empricorn@feddit.nl 8 months ago
I love how you can’t provide even a single example of useful Blockchain functionality. Doesn’t mean it didn’t exist, but says something… And no, “banking” and “internal ledgers” is not detailed enough to be a sufficient example.
Supermariofan67@programming.dev 8 months ago
How about Git?
neatchee@lemmy.world 8 months ago
Try again