5 ms·

I can barely believe I’m typing this, but an incentivized blockchain (aka Bitcoin et al) is a legitimate option to ensure a coherent and mutually agreed upon hi

I can barely believe I’m typing this, but an incentivized blockchain (aka Bitcoin et al) is a legitimate option to ensure a coherent and mutually agreed upon history of information in the face of competing economic actors. Too bad about the climate change and scams that seem to be part of the bargain…

lambdaba 4y ago
I don't understand the climate change comment - not yours specifically, it is common. If POW blockchains are genuinely useful (perhaps indispensable) in this way, why does it matter if it "costs" some emissions to keep in running while also providing orders of magnitude more value that would go into... reducing emissions.
- drewbug01 4y ago
  > providing orders of magnitude more value That’s the reason you keep hearing the argument: proof-of-work blockchain technology has not yet demonstrated that it provides “orders of magnitude more value.”
- JohnFen 4y ago
  Because the cost is well in excess of the value, and the value won't go into reducing emissions. In effect, it's just people destroying the environment in order to line their own pockets. That's the game we need to change everywhere.
TarasBob 4y ago
Ethereum is a better choice because no impact on climate change and it’s more secure. Also smart contracts make it more convenient to store information. You can build a contract that allows anyone to publish a hash in 5 minutes. You could have a map from address to an append only list of hashes. Anyone who calls the publish(bytes32 hash) function just adds to their own list.
- JohnFen 4y ago
  > no impact on climate change Less impact, surely. Not zero impact.
rom-antics 4y ago
We're talking about URL shorteners here. If you have a 20 character URL, which points at a blockchain, which points at a 50 character URL - just store the original 50 character URL and skip the blockchain. The only real use case for URL shorteners is length-limited fields like 280-character tweets, but Twitter runs their own URL shortening service already, so again, no blockchain needed.
- sharkbot 4y ago
  The article talks about ownership transfer of a url database and the potential for history rewriting. An incentivized blockchain could be part of the solution to ensure history rewrites are not economically possible. I don’t have a protocol sketch, this is just a marginalia comment. Exercise left for an interested reader, which sounds like isn’t you :)
  - rom-antics 4y ago
    The article says that such a URL database should never be used in the first place. You don't have to pay anybody to preserve the history of your data, if you just maintain control of your data in the first place. It's just 30 more bytes to store, I think we all can afford the cost.
    - sharkbot 4y ago
      I don’t mean to belabour the point, but I think the nuance is worth exploring. The key point in my view is “control”. You’ve referred to Uber.com/Xmas-sale as an example where Uber the economic entity is in charge of their own shortening and therefore avoids the problem. However, Uber the company may fall on hard times, sell their real and intellectual property and we’re facing the same issue of a lifetime mismatch between an owner and an URI. Incentivized blockchains are theoretically singletons and perpetual; the worst case of a history rewrite is economically disincentivized. The lifetime of the URI database exceeds the URI lifetime. In practice, I agree with you that companies should ensure control over their URIs over their lifetime. The advantages of a blockchain approach are far outweighed by the current downsides.
redox99 4y ago
Basically ENS (Ethereum Name System) but simpler and cheaper.
humanizersequel 4y ago
>Too bad about the climate change The Ethereum merge to Proof of Stake was one the biggest technological achievements in 2022, how did you miss it?

lambdaba 4y ago

I don't understand the climate change comment - not yours specifically, it is common. If POW blockchains are genuinely useful (perhaps indispensable) in this way, why does it matter if it "costs" some emissions to keep in running while also providing orders of magnitude more value that would go into... reducing emissions.

drewbug01 4y ago
> providing orders of magnitude more value That’s the reason you keep hearing the argument: proof-of-work blockchain technology has not yet demonstrated that it provides “orders of magnitude more value.”
JohnFen 4y ago
Because the cost is well in excess of the value, and the value won't go into reducing emissions. In effect, it's just people destroying the environment in order to line their own pockets. That's the game we need to change everywhere.

TarasBob 4y ago

Ethereum is a better choice because no impact on climate change and it’s more secure. Also smart contracts make it more convenient to store information. You can build a contract that allows anyone to publish a hash in 5 minutes. You could have a map from address to an append only list of hashes. Anyone who calls the publish(bytes32 hash) function just adds to their own list.

JohnFen 4y ago
> no impact on climate change Less impact, surely. Not zero impact.

rom-antics 4y ago

We're talking about URL shorteners here. If you have a 20 character URL, which points at a blockchain, which points at a 50 character URL - just store the original 50 character URL and skip the blockchain. The only real use case for URL shorteners is length-limited fields like 280-character tweets, but Twitter runs their own URL shortening service already, so again, no blockchain needed.

sharkbot 4y ago
The article talks about ownership transfer of a url database and the potential for history rewriting. An incentivized blockchain could be part of the solution to ensure history rewrites are not economically possible. I don’t have a protocol sketch, this is just a marginalia comment. Exercise left for an interested reader, which sounds like isn’t you :)
- rom-antics 4y ago
  The article says that such a URL database should never be used in the first place. You don't have to pay anybody to preserve the history of your data, if you just maintain control of your data in the first place. It's just 30 more bytes to store, I think we all can afford the cost.
  - sharkbot 4y ago
    I don’t mean to belabour the point, but I think the nuance is worth exploring. The key point in my view is “control”. You’ve referred to Uber.com/Xmas-sale as an example where Uber the economic entity is in charge of their own shortening and therefore avoids the problem. However, Uber the company may fall on hard times, sell their real and intellectual property and we’re facing the same issue of a lifetime mismatch between an owner and an URI. Incentivized blockchains are theoretically singletons and perpetual; the worst case of a history rewrite is economically disincentivized. The lifetime of the URI database exceeds the URI lifetime. In practice, I agree with you that companies should ensure control over their URIs over their lifetime. The advantages of a blockchain approach are far outweighed by the current downsides.

redox99 4y ago

Basically ENS (Ethereum Name System) but simpler and cheaper.

humanizersequel 4y ago

>Too bad about the climate change The Ethereum merge to Proof of Stake was one the biggest technological achievements in 2022, how did you miss it?