Talk:2267: Blockchain

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Jump to: navigation, search

I wonder if this is inspired by Jimmy Wales mocking the idea that Wikipedia should use blockchain on Twitter the other day: [1] 22:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

It might also be related to a 2018 paper by the NIST which included a flowchart to explain why you didn't need a blockchain [2] (Flowchart on page 42) 00:42, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia really has no need to secure data changes, that's the definition of a wiki. Is there ANY benefit AT ALL to changing that? 01:00, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
No, but according to blockchain enthusiasts, they have some sort of legal obligation to (in order to prevent piracy or illegal porn distribution, apparently). This is as ridiculous as it sounds. Probably not Douglas Hofstadter (talk) 01:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Never mind that at least one blockchain has images of child abuse written into it... --NotaBene (talk) 02:06, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
Immutable signed history of every furtive access of illicit resources, coming soon to an interface near you! Who wouldn't want a global record of their porn, drug, & unlicensed content usage, written permanently for all to see?  ;S
ProphetZarquon (talk) 08:07, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
A similar flowchart is the first one in -- 08:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

When I first saw this explanation I though "WTF, wall of text. TL;DR". Then I saw the comment of why it's still considered incomplete. And then I actually read the whole thing. And "unfortunately" I think all this is needed to explain the comic to someone who doesn't know what blockhains are, why they can be problematic and why they are not THE default solution to implement. So I'd vote for removing the incomplete tag. Elektrizikekswerk (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

So, as with the (current) bit of explanation of "blockchain is only potentially useful if you need a data store that must never be erased, must be auditable, and where lots of people need to write to it but none of them can be trusted to have control over it", there I was thinking that this would be exactly what you need for the democratic process of voting. (Despite this!) ;) 19:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe I should adjust that to read "administrative control" or something like that, because while it is true that lots of people need to cast ballots, there are still limitations on who is allowed to vote in any given election, so you need to bring in proofs of identity and residency, which the blockchain is poorly suited to handle. Why should everyone in the world have a say on e.g. a list of who is resident in my state? And if you're going to say that only some people have permission to modify that list, it doesn't need to be a blockchain.
You'll also still need to trust the companies making and operating the application, who haven't exactly had a great showing for themselves when it comes to handling governance of large organizations. --NotaBene (talk) 21:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
In most countries, there is additional specific requirement for voting: while only specific list of people are allowed to vote, it shouldn't be possible to verify how specific person voted. I think that blockchain won't exactly make this simpler. -- Hkmaly (talk) 01:09, 14 February 2020 (UTC) The real flow chart goes like this: Should I use block chain?-> Users of app cant be sure they can trust developer not to build a network that said developer could exploit for fraud and must therefore distribute the server between all users to be sure no one modifies the data, thus ensuring all transactions can be validated by anyone -> Yes: Otherwise NO!!!