Skip to main content


The blockchain vs the Fediverse :fediverse: :

I would bet somebody actual money that they physically could NOT find a blockchain application that isn't, at it's core, a financial transaction engine.

It's simply not possible to do with the blockchain. That's why crypto investors like Web 3 while everyone else really doesn't.

The blockchain is great for transactions. That's it.

ActivityPub and other web protocols are the exact opposite, made for everything but financial transactions.

1/many 🧵
Distributed vs Federated.
Both are decentralized.

Federated systems are a lot more modular and require a lot less trust to be built into a protocol then distributed systems.
Because of this, they are inherently worse for transactions, but a lot better for things like social media and communication.

Web 3 is trying to make a distributed system do what really should be done by a federated system. The result is a clunky implementation of anything attempting to implement the protocol.

2/many 🧵

This is why Web 3 is inherently flawed. :blobcatthink:

Blockchain systems are really only good for transactions.

Federated systems are good for everything but transactions.

I only have a problem when somebody tries to make one do what the other should.

That's all, have a nice day 😀

3/3 🧵
Good for transactions? You must be joking. Unless you think that storing millions of redundant copies of each transaction and abysmal transaction processing speeds are good.

Blockchain invented a problem that didn't need solving. All their talk about the 51% attack is due to blockchain being uniquely susceptible to that kind of attack.

And for what? To be able to say that there's no central authority? Ask yourself is destroying our planet worth that.
I mean, it works, but I agree that it is incredibly slow and redundant.
Keep in mind that I am attempting to speak to both sides here (and losing miserably I might add) trying to give both sides the credit for things that are actually working.
The Fediverse mainly does communication, the blockchain only does transactions. I probably shouldn't have said it's "good" for transactions, but whatever.
It's good for nothing, or as we in Serbia would say, It's good for sinking cabbage. 😂
It's important to remember that I am attempting to speak on both sides of this argument.

Right now, there are multiple people mad at me because
1. "blockchain technology has other uses too."
and
2. "the blockchain is a fucking redundant mess that is useless even for transactions."

I tried to find a middle ground that is supported by the main REAL WORLD use cases.

Nobody likes a compromise.

We all want to make the world better, so don't make it worse with arguments about this stuff.

4/3 🧵
There isn't a compromise in this situation. It's simply impossible. You've got people who share no common ground.

And I'm sorry, but not all of us want to make the world a better place. Some of them want nothing more than to line their pockets while they watch the world burn.

I'm sorry if I personally came off as mad at you. That was never my intention. I get very emotional about this sort of stuff.
Let me rephrase that:
All the people on the Fediverse reading this message, some of whom also like cryptocurrencies, want to make the world a better place.
On one hand we want nothing less than complete destruction of web3. On the other they want to see it become the next big thing.

Any compromise here becomes impossible.

Web3 threatens democracy itself. It's not neutral in the culture war, it wants to end it by eliminating our bargaining tools. They want to establish a framework where code rules all, and mere humans have no say in what the code does. It's, after all, "impartial".
I feel ya. Nuance is hard and people either don't know to interpret a stranger's motives, or they're too convinced by what they already believe to even consider another perspective.

Too many people think that listening to the "opposition" is a failure, when listening to the opposition is actually a great way to learn why they think that way. Even if their beliefs are wrong in your opinion, it's much more effective to convince people if you know the real reason they want to believe something, instead of the reason they tell you in anger as a reaction to what they think you said...

Um, this is a ramble. Over the years, I've learnt to keep my mouth shut unless I'm willing to write an entire essay on the subject (and even then, gotta shrug off the people who will argue about the title without reading the essay). You're free to come to a different solution, of course; mine is probably antisocial. Anything else is a detriment to my mental health though. I can't deal with the constant anger

Linux in a tar.gz reshared this.

Wow, you put it perfectly :blobcathug:
I am a bit biased, coming from a pro-blockchain but anti-hypercapitalist/nft/bullshit viewpoint, I have seen IRL examples in the medical and even the construction fields, despite most of it being finance there are already some non-fintech uses. Also, it's really good for voting/polls with zero-knowledge.
Don't worry, everyone in this conversation is a bit biased.
I come from the stance of "old man yelling at cloud" as you can probably tell :blobcatgiggle:
Most bitcoiners these days will agree with you. Bitcoin is a good currency which requires an inherently inefficient design in order to make it politically independent & censorship resistant. Blockchain is mostly useless in other contexts (unless you count things like git).
I have to disagree on this one. Blockchain technology can be used for non-financial stuff, one specific example is as an immutable ledger for medical uses/procedures/etc
Ok, I'll admit, this was a little rant-y, and their are definitely other (potential) uses for the blockchain, but the main one is transaction.
I should also clarify that I am specifically criticizing the use of the blockchain in things like games, image/video sharing, and social media

Linux in a tar.gz reshared this.

@ThatOneCalculator :calcdumpy: I'd actually be interested in learning more about how it's used in the medical field. Is there something that the blockchain does there that can't be achieved in a less wasteful way?
Actually, yes, specifically in medicine.

Also, just to get a misconception out of the way, blockchain itself isn't that wasteful, most of the environmental concerns are about proof-of-work coins, which aren't utilized here. One record on a blockchain network like this takes less energy than a credit card swipe.

With that said, there is a large problem of medical corruption, especially in the US where patients won't get the drugs they need from doctors and pharmacists. If all requests for medical drugs are made through a smart contract and logged on a blockchain, there could be definitive proof of exactly what needs to have been distributed and, if an automated system was present, that it was distributed.

"But why not just log each event on a server?" That's what's happening now, and there have been cases of tampering with database entries. A blockchain would provide an immutable ledger that couldn't be tampered with.
@ThatOneCalculator :calcdumpy: So, if I'm understanding correctly, because you don't have to defend against double-spending, you don't need to have proof-of-work? That actually makes sense.
proof-of-work is honestly very outdated technology and is being phased out in favor of proof-of-stake, but even that isn't particularly needed for this application given it could technically work without tokens/tokenomics. Blockchain tech at its core is just a linked ledger stored on IPFS.
@ThatOneCalculator :calcdumpy: I need to do more research on proof-of-stake. I have some reservations about it, but I'm not knowledgeable enough on the subject to be able to say for certain whether or not it's a good idea.
It's by no means perfect. But for something like this, that shouldn't even be necessary, literally the bare minimum that's needed is an IPFS database, aka a blockchain.
I wouldn't say it's great for transactions. It's just that it's the only decentralized tool we have to date for transactions. Transactions are what it was designed for, and it's far too wasteful to be a useful tool for anything else.
I've heard of this before...
I guess you may be right, but I'd have to look into it more.
Wow, people will find the smallest things to go after you for, won't they...
Take a look at this amazing post by Brianna:
https://tassaron.com/@brianna/108190526924208183
and if you don't read it, then you are quite literally missing the point of what I just asked you to read.
"Nuance is hard and people either don't know to interpret a stranger's motives, or they're too convinced by what they already believe to even consider another perspective.
Too many people think that listening to the "opposition" is a failure, when listening to the opposition is actually a great way to learn why they think that way."
I was thinking that. I have already explained this to somebody before, so here:
https://linuxrocks.online/@Linux_in_a_Bit/108190363427709369
Think you could make a decentralized DNS via DHT tho.
Yes blockchain could possibly be used for good without draining the sun for all its power.

But that i'd wager most people don't know about blockchain outside the scope of cryptocurrencies and i've seen some people seemingly thinking blockchain == decentralized and there being no other way of doing it.

Crypto and Blockchain is hyped up right now like dodos as the perfect catfood ... or something.
Yeah, my main point in that "bet" (and the thread as a whole) was to critique the use of one technology where it really should be handled by the other.
I admit that the first post wasn't the best introduction, and I had some slightly incorrect points. I wasn't really trying to say it wasn't specifically possible, but it was the best I could think of at the time to make the point I was making.

Linux in a tar.gz reshared this.

This website uses cookies. If you continue browsing this website, you agree to the usage of cookies.