markdown guide

I read into it, first to learn what the hype was about, later as research into transaction methods. My current take is that blockchains are something between a scam and pure marketing: blockchains let you handle order dependent data manipulations in a way that both allows and requires decentralization, for situation where a trusted (third) party to host a database cannot be identified, as databases would be superior in that case.

I have yet to see a problem that matches this description. It's the age-old story of the hammer and problems that are not nails.


This is true in many case Dr.

Hammers for non nails.

Regular dbs are often the better option. Except in cases of trust. The main use of blockchain is a replacement of trust, not tech really. Crypto currency/supply chain & digital assets are pretty good uses of crypto.


Well, as I said: if there is trust, blockchains are not a good fit. The inverse is not true though, it there is no trust, blockchain may still not be a good fit.

If you data is monotonic, asymmetric encryption will suffice.
If you cannot guarantee decentralization, a 50% attack is viable and your blockchain assets become worthless.
If digital assets must have a stable value, you cannot use blockchain (or any other decentralized approach I expect).

EDIT: It's also worth considering what the arrival of quantum computing might do to blockchains. I'm not particularly familiar with the exact effect of QC on encryption so I don't know exactly, but from what I understand e.g. stealing bitcoin wallets would be easy.

I agree. No trust does not mean "go to blockchain". Trust is also fluid so if you can decentralize trust (in any aspect) it usually helps.

Do I want to hold the keys to my data or FB? (their ability to analyze/use/sell alone). This is a perfectly valid use case for blockchain as setting up full systems is unreasonable.

Digital assets don't necessary need implicit value (maybe I want to track my stuff/ record the original digital copy of my stuff). Asset mgt. Supply chain. Auditing. Verification. All can/have been done in many ways. Blockchain is elegant in some cases.

It's not all technical, in most cases I see blockchain is about people. The technical side (its a db!) is less interesting.

These are part of the reason many leading tech are investing/building (also speculation).

With respect to quantum? Let's see. Stealing from your house/bank/car/gov is already easy.

Like every tech, there are uses & it is not really black & white.

Well, let's look into the data example you've given.
How is a blockchain going to help here? Maybe I'm missing something, but AFAIK blockchain is a system that enforces linearity in a systems where copies can be made, by requiring some expense for every change. Personal data is not linear though, it is constant.

I don't see how blockchain is about people. We are describing a methodology, not a group of people or ideology.

Regarding why tech companies are investing in blockchain, it's part hype, but they're also flexing. Blockchain is considered complicated. Being able to use that technology shows you're technologically competent and updated. Remember second life?

You're right about quantum. I was thinking centralized organizations could switch to quantum encryption to combat quantum decryption, but bitcoin has consensus-based changes and forks, so it can do the same and my example does not hold. I've got no idea how hashing (a pillar of BC) would fare in a QC world.

Facebook's globe coin or bitcoin, which would you prefer to be the main currency? (fb coin could be centralized it's not as relevant, they are clouting). It's not really about the tech as the control of the tech .

For social media: Getting paid (brave) & holding your own records, deplatforming, privacy.

Plenty of blockchain investment is not hype (plenty is).

SL? There are loads of VR worlds now. Decentraland is the decentralized/crypto version.

Blockchain is a form of tech & like most tech, there are many ways to implement or many different technologies you can use. The real value comes in the changes it makes to trust/control & governance, not so much the technical aspects.

Would you prefer to hold all your own {health} data, with your own keys & allow access to others or use "Microsoft outsourcing"? Blockchain solves that (so does your own server blah blah but that is not reasonable).

You are confusing blockchain with p2p and decentralization.

No. I know the distinction well. I was there for Napster through until now. I've built multiple blockchain/crypto things. I remember everyone saying the same thing when I was learning KAL/Kappa.

For some reason you want to prove that it is worthless, when clearly it is not. I understand & have acknowledged there is a lot of hype.

I also don't care. I build tech people want, not what I like/dislike.

You should have led with that. I thought you were new to the subject and was trying to save you the time I wasted diving into it.

I am interested in the opinions of smart people like yourself, I like opinions I can agree or disagree with & think I learned some good stuff from you.

It's more about the debate in this case & I think you are right in the sense there is a large number of worthless crypto/block projects but there are also very valid use cases which tend to revolve around the people-related issues (that block may or may not solve).

Look at vs wikipedia. The block is used to create trust (governance/voting) but isn't better technically than a single party db from a dev perspective.

It's also clear that people prefer public info to be placed on a chain than in private hands. land deeds/gov records etc.

Look, I'm not saying DBs pareto dominate blockchain, maybe private blockchain, but not public ones.

The thing is that there are yet other approaches. If you have at least partial trust, you can often use that to great effect (I believe the stellar protocol does this). I have yet to see a use of blockchain that makes sense to me. In the case of everipedia, for instance, how do you ensure uniqueness of voters without trust? How do we justify the notion that the majority (of voters) is right?

I'm still trying to find some kind of broader explanation as to why that is. So far, this is my reasoning: digital data can be either truth-typed (following classical logic or constructive logic) or a resource-typed (following linear logic). Truth never changes, so blockchains are unnecessary for this. If something is a resource, it should have worth, and therefore be a exchangeable for something non-digital, but this requires some form of trust. E.g. the rights to a copyrighted work require trust in the government to uphold copyright laws, or you could just have used it without paying.

Matching above pattern to everipedia: it wants to deal in facts (truth-typed), but can only record popularity among voters (resource-typed). Popularity among voters should be 'exchangeable' for popularity among real people, but doing so would require trust in the signup process.

You may be right suggesting that I'm biased against BC. I really wanted to use cryptocurrencies in a project of mine, as it would allow me to bypass really restrictive regulation (which changed since PSD2) and perhaps exploit speculative investment to get early funding, but I soon discovered it was technically impossible. So I might have a little bit of a grudge, as it were.

I think you are mostly right on technicals, but also that it is mainly a case of "better than" rather than perfect. I don't believe in neutral agenda (people that build big tech do so with agenda).

Everi is a slightly better trust/accuracy model than wiki (according to one of the founders of both). Block = less VC, better chance, less infrastructure, community support, stakeholder buy in. Everi can have unlimited pages on a topic, not just one. The chain will show edits (does wiki always, can it be manipulated invisibly?). These features make it more interesting alone. Most votes does not = best anywhere in life. I don't use popularity as a judge of much so the vote/signup issue is not very relevant to me (it's more than wiki again, but I am happy with anon info).

Almost nothing we use now tech wise is doing the thing it was designed to do originally (it was all extended/changed/improved etc).

Utopian fallacies result in inaction. Small change is progress. It can be flawed & incomplete but useful. The difference between "should" & "does". It's the opposite of binary.

It doesn't have to solve every problem, just some. It's just another tool/tech. Your grudge is valid if you spent energy but it didn't live up to the promises (it became expense). It does have uses & many of the people who built what we use today are working on blockchain/crypto products with valid use cases (yes, there is loads of junk too).

My main issue personally is that once you mix money & tech in that way, it becomes very emotional for people (see twitter fomo when coins are up). I like unemotional tech if possible.

After the hype, there will be a few good use cases (usually financially beneficial) & a lot of the silly stuff will drop to the side.

I'll give you a very good use case: sending money, avoiding dealing with banks (partially). That doesn't mean I think "crypto will bring down banking" really.

So that we are clear: I like that you dislike/are sceptical/cynical about it. Trying to figure out deep issues from cheerleaders is pointless.


Heh, back to 2012 but not the fashionable scams, no. Bitcoin is here to stay and changing everything on a deeper level than it seems - note however that Ethereum and similar blockchain-hype are neither innovations nor what Bitcoin is all about.


BTC is for sure here to stay & changing a lot (great gatekeeper removal).

In the same way that it is better to have more choices in tech, the same is true of crypto. At a minimum it pushes btc forward.

I don't think it is all a dog & pony show, as I like the idea of having choices (I understand a lot is garbage). The scams who are here for a quick money grab? People are tired of that & it seems like it is/will get better.

Ignoring the hype, there are a bunch of uses for blockchain.


Why is it "better to have more choices in tech" ?

Note that people are never (nor will they ever be) tired of scams, no. The reason for this is simply a psychological one - there will always be people who believe the lie that they like at the expense of the reality that they don't enjoy.

What are those "uses for blockchain" you have in mind precisely?

  1. There was a time where Microsoft wanted to own the web. Competition prevented that.
  2. We currently have one search engine & it is fomenting division.
  3. We have 2 mobile OS.
  4. Imagine one company called "Internet".
  5. I like different tech to you.
  6. I like lots of choice myself & for others. Why not?
  7. The tech establishment is about to be revealed for what they have been up to & it's almost all bad. Their cheerleaders & connections too.
  8. I try not to use things that are against my principles unless I am forced to. When forced, it gets destroyed (as it was not built to withstand forced usage).
  9. Look at the youtube deplatforming.
  10. Single point of failure.

There's more, but that's enough & it's kind of obvious why choice is a good thing.

On crypto:

  • What if the main repo is compromised.
  • BTC has choice. Forks.
  • Governance. Ownership. Price.
  • Who needs one currency to rule the world? Pass.
  • Like evolution, trying different things is good.
  • There are way more scams in tech or biz than in crypto.

I don't need other people to decide for me, Govs? corps? gatekeepers? Some 28yr old who thinks they hit gold because they built a site or tech product? No thanks.

Uses for blockchain or crypto?

  • BAT/brave, Steemit, everipedia, creary. Smart money, contracts, decentralization, Destroying gatekeepers (do you think dev to lasts as a big community owned by a couple of people or that a decentralized version comes along very soon & appeals more to people due to all the deplatforming. The traffic numbers are very clear already.
  • Payment systems, inventory tracking, project funding, contribution payments, archiving, automation.

That's a few.

Scams are a tiny part of the whole ecosystem. Unpaid user generated content (like what we are doing here & everywhere is a bigger scam).

So come over on irc and/or blog and stop giving in to the scam because re unpaid user generated content you are totally right.

I'll happily continue the conversation either on my blog or in the irc channel.

Hehehe smooth. Done. Show me a thread on your site.

I only came back because a whole bunch of people forgot their positions & correction is needed. I always appear before that correction to see if course correction is possible.

Pick and choose from perhaps the outreach category would be of most interest to you ( ) The thick discussions happen in the forum though - you'll be able to read/skim the logs.

Interesting. Subscribed (rss).

I dropped a link that will appear here (it's in the scheduler to remind me to check back) (404 rn). I'll be over to comment when I have a bit more time.

Is there a video of your Reading talk?


Sadly no video, no (though you are on to something there, so at next talk I'll plan to get the video too).

Cool. I'll read for now.

What is Minigame?

Minigame is Eulora's producer, listed on MPEX as S.MG. From my blog if you read around, you'll surely find all the info on it and on Eulora too.


btc mmorpg. That is very interesting, 3D decent worlds are one of the main things I am looking at. I'm reading. 👍


1) I got into it because I was curious. The "blockchain" concept is really interesting I think.
2) I read lots of explanation about blockchain to understand his concept. I bought some Ethereum to see how it works and what I can do with it.
3) I am a beta tester for a trading card game based on blockchain (Zombie Battleground from Loom Games). Thanks to blockchain, you can trade, buy or sell the cards from/to other players.
4) The best thing about blockchain to me : to have ownership on digital stuff, that you can trade or sell (or give !).


Thanks for your answers GN4RK,

It's interesting as you don't hear that much from actual users (hodl/trade/build/shill sure).

So you mostly have fun with it & play MTG style games? Have you made money from it? (are they going up in value?)



Yep I mostly have fun with it. I have no particular interest in the speculative aspect. I also learn to code DApps with (also from Loom Network).


I tried cryptozombies when it came out.


I love to join but I have so many other things to do for now and just reading articles about it.

when do I join?

¯_(ツ)_/¯ whenever I got freed.


Hey Ahmad, I can answer some questions if that helps, if not this thread will probably be here for a long time. 👍

Classic DEV Post from Mar 22

Opinion: Architect VS Engineer VS Developer

(Opinion) Architect VS Engineer VS Developer.

Vuild profile image
1:01 Msg if you want to be followed. 👍