
The blockchain is a threat to the distributed future of the Internet - xrorre
https://lasindias.com/blockchain-is-a-threat-to-the-distributed-future-of-the-internet
======
natrius
This just isn't true. Yes, running your own blockchain node is infeasible, but
a blockchain-based service with hosted nodes is better than a federated
service.

Proof-of-work creates an illusion of dependence on blockchain miners. Proof-
of-stake makes it clear that blockchains are run by a corporation that wants
to maximize transaction fee revenue. Transaction validators have to do the
best job of maintaining a unified historical record of all transactions for
people to keep giving them business. Otherwise, users will choose different
validators and carry on without them.

Blockchains are fancy spools of receipt paper. If the printer gets jammed,
tear off the stuff you care about and staple it to a new spool. The printer
doesn't control the people. The people employ the printer.

With that said, it's still unclear whether blockchains are the right choice
for publishing. A decentralized Twitter doesn't need consensus on a historical
record. An IPFS-based Twitter is probably a better way to start, then anchor
the parts that need consensus on a blockchain, like usernames and timestamps.

~~~
goldbrick
What part isn't true, specifically? We are dependent on blockchain miners,
because without them our transactions don't get accepted. Moreover we have a
couple established big players that control the market and no clear way for
them to get disrupted, save abandoning Bitcoin entirely.

Blockchains are much more than receipt paper. Receipt paper is a superfluous
byproduct. The blockchain is the system of record.

~~~
natrius
This is untrue: "Because blockchain is consensual, after a certain point of
centralization, the rules of the system depend on very few users."

If a blockchain has rules that don't meet my needs, I can choose a different
blockchain. If I adopt a blockchain that changes its rules to be undesirable,
I can take the history I care about and move it to another blockchain.

This argument depends on proof-of-stake. Some people think proof-of-work
blockchains are the only useful ones, but I disagree. It's also a boring
debate to have, so I won't be doing that here.

~~~
drdaeman
> If a blockchain has rules that don't meet my needs, I can choose a different
> blockchain.

Had this happened with Bitcoin? I think I heard there are some quite major
disagreements (something about block sizes and stuff) and there are a lot of
users that aren't happy. I don't remember hearing them just "well, whatever"
and forking off.

~~~
natrius
Bitcoin is a special case because it's only really intended to be used as a
ledger for bitcoins. Currencies are a collective delusion: they're valuable
because other people think they are valuable. Any dispute over what the source
of truth is for a currency's ledger strains that delusion, possibly to the
breaking point. The value of the currency would suffer, which would defeat the
purpose of a fork.

Ethereum is a general purpose blockchain. Forking it could hurt the value of
ether, but for many applications, the value of ether doesn't matter. Moving a
blockchain-based Twitter from one fork to another is relatively easy and
consequence-free.

~~~
drdaeman
> Moving a blockchain-based Twitter from one fork to another is relatively
> easy and consequence-free.

I'm not sure it's really consequence-free. It's essentially a netsplit, where
the forking party lose connectivity with everyone who's left. Consider the
case where Twitter (the centralized one) is suddenly falling apart over some
issue into two distinct non-interoperating services. Technically - sure - it's
a no-brainer, but socially it feels quite complicated to me.

(I guess, this would work if the app would be designed to use multiple
blockchains. I need to give it some thought.)

~~~
natrius
You got it. Push a new client that supports both chains to users with enough
time before the switch for people to upgrade.

~~~
shiro
Technical curiosity---if I use such a client, and two block chains disagree
(on, say, some history that affects the current operation), then won't I end
up choosing and sticking one?

~~~
natrius
Yep! At that point, the problem isn't a blockchain-specific one, it's a more
general problem of reconciling conflicting truths. A common, trivial solution
is to rank sources of truth.

------
Animats
_" The alternative on which we can build a great new Internet era is projects
like GNU social, Friendica, Hubzilla, Diaspora, and efforts to design common
protocols like ActivityPub, not on the blockchain."_

All the new federated social systems have failed, replaced by commercial,
centralized systems. (IRC and email live on. Google thinks it owns Usenet,
rebranded as "Google Groups", and a big chunk of email never passes through
SMTP.) Why? We had a good discussion of this recently by the creator of
WhatsApp(?). Centralized systems can be upgraded and enhanced. Federated
systems require massive cooperation to change. And federated systems don't
generate much revenue.

~~~
fallenshell
Besides, there's the convenience and ease of use aspect. Most of these
federated services are not easy to use for the average newcomer or tech-
illiterate user demographic, for example. And sometimes they're inconvenient.

~~~
stcredzero
Couldn't a federated system that looks like a centralized system work? What if
something like Diaspora just installed itself on an AWS EC2 instance for you,
and you only had to enter a credit card?

~~~
Animats
An EC2 instance is probably too much for one user. The model here is
Wordpress, which is easy to install and widely used, even in its distributed
form. Of course, what's happened is that more and more Wordpress sites run on
centralized Wordpress.

Compare:

"wordpress.com" (hosted): "Create your new website for free. WordPress.com is
the best place for your personal blog or business site. Create Website
(button)"

"wordpress.org" (download): "The latest stable release of WordPress (Version
4.5.2) is available in two formats from the links to your right. If you have
no idea what to do with this download, we recommend signing up with one of our
web hosting partners that offers a one-click install of WordPress or getting a
free account on WordPress.com."

Open source just doesn't get user-friendly onboarding.

~~~
stcredzero
How about a Docker instance?

~~~
nickpsecurity
Compare setting up Docker and Wordpress to what Animats just said. Then you'll
know why that's hilarious. You've managed to move the problem from one piece
of software to another.

~~~
stcredzero
The original proposal was for the setup to be automated.

~~~
nickpsecurity
Is it as simple as filling out a form on the Internet, getting login
credentials, and not thinking about it from there? _That_ is automated and
manages itself. What's the Docker + Wordpress version of that?

~~~
stcredzero
It would be the same, but have benefits in terms of isolation and cost to the
provider.

~~~
nickpsecurity
So, you don't have to install Docker, administer a server, do updates, back up
data, and deal with ISP's over outages? I didnt realize Docker was that far
along in zero management and maintenance. Send me a link so i can try that
out.

------
psiconaut
i'm not a fan of "blockchain for everything", but stating that a distributed
system is a danger for distribution, and favoring a decentralized, federated
approach instead sounds like plainly wrong.

------
TazeTSchnitzel
Imagine if BitTorrent, or Freenet/IPFS/GNUNet/etc. used a blockchain. They'd
be completely infeasible for anyone except Google: you'd need petabytes of
storage on your computer just to download a single movie (or a Linux ISO, or
whatever).

But they don't do that. These systems are actually distributed, and that's why
they work.

~~~
brighton36
'Blockchain' is a meaningless buzzword at this point. The innovation of
Bitcoin was proof of work and/or the calibrations involved in securing Bitcoin
with energy.

When bitcoin became an unfundable space, the VC's and such moved into
"Blockchain", which was marketed as the good parts of bitcoin, without the
bad.

Unfortunately, the space has seemingly gone on to only emulate the worst parts
of bitcoin. Scams, ignorance, and get rich quick schemes. Currently,
"blockchain" appears to be targeting centralized, decentralized, mutable,
immutable applications. The blockchain movement is meaningless, and appears to
be merely the exhaust gas from the bitcoin funding hype.

~~~
kkennis
'Blockchain' isn't a meaningless buzzword, it's a database protocol. Its
market positioning aside, there's a very real value that immutable databases
offer from both a technological and a commercial perspective.

The blockchain protocol isn't going to 'save the world' \- but once a little
air gets let out of the balloon, it's going to see a lot of adoption in both
financial institutions and back offices in a wide, wide, range of industries.
For a world with lots of data and lots of shady actors, it just makes sense.

~~~
troymc
I agree that "blockchain" is essentially a database protocol for a special
kind of database, but I'm fairly sure there's no standard, agreed-upon, single
"blockchain protocol."

Bitcoin may be the best-known blockchain protocol, but there many others in
active use.

~~~
zardo
IpPFS

------
pyrale
"The" blockchain = one subset of potential uses of Ethereum ?

Did someone take some time to tell author that internet is not www, and that
www is not maintaining datacenters ?

I'm surprised that some people find this article informative.

------
em3rgent0rdr
Threat is poor word choice. If blockchains don't provide good distributed
service, then they simply won't be used, in which case they aren't much a
threat. Maybe author should have use the thesis that blockchains aren't the
end-all-be-all of the distributed internet.

~~~
dilemma
No, what the post is saying is that power will be consolidated among a very
small number of very large players. The system won't be distributed but
relatively centralized.

~~~
em3rgent0rdr
In which case it is not very effective. So it is not a _threat_.

~~~
dilemma
What won't be effective and why?

------
PhaseMage
The TCP/IP Internet is also an engine of centralization. By limiting hop
counts, and distributing addresses hierarchically, we end up with just a few
giant players in each industry.

------
xseven
Is the writer trolling or what?

~~~
peterwwillis
Sort of. They're conflating The Internet with a blogging platform. I guess to
some people that's what The Internet is.

------
known
TCP/IP is resilient;

