TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

The Blockchain Problem Space – When to Use Blockchain?

127 点作者 ZGF4将近 8 年前

12 条评论

dang将近 8 年前
All: We&#x27;ve banned this site and this account for using a spam service to buy upvotes. Obviously that is a capital offense on HN. There&#x27;s no issue on which the community feels more strongly.<p>I wish everyone would realize that when they do this, they leave obvious trails in the data and so it is not worth the risk.
tmail21将近 8 年前
The other major issue with Blockchain is that &quot;all nodes can see everything&quot;. This is theoretically a problem with distributed databases as well. However, in the case of distributed databases, the database nodes that can &quot;see everything&quot; are not the end user, whereas, in Blockchain because the nodes are untrusted, one must assume that the end user can see the entire Blockchain state.<p>This limits the number of use-cases tremendously to those where &quot;everyone-can-see-everything&quot; is an acceptable tradeoff.<p>There are several ways around this.<p>1) Zero Knowledge Proofs. But these are highly specialized and resource intensive. To my knowledge we don&#x27;t have these for generalized Smart Contracts.<p>2) Split the overall state into Channels, Subledgers etc. with narrower &quot;viewing rights&quot;. But again this typically involves an application compromise.<p>3) Encrypt or cryptographically hash portions of the state. But by definition, this portion of the state cannot be acted upon by smart contracts.<p>4) Use frameworks like Microsoft&#x27;s recently released CoCo Framework which relies on Hardware Trusted Execution Environments (TEE). The issue here is that a compromise of a single TEE negates the whole scheme.<p>In my opinion the privacy characteristics of Blockchain are a critical factor that needs to be taken into account while deciding on the suitability of Blockchai for an application.
评论 #15008895 未加载
评论 #15008948 未加载
评论 #15009427 未加载
kang将近 8 年前
You know what is a great database with all those properties?<p>Your folder with git. There is nothing that you cant do with git that you can do with blockchains as a database.<p>About the BFT part, it fails the mention the very important part that it doesnt work without proof-of-work.<p>---<p>So then when should we use p-o-w blockchains?<p>When you want to decentralize control - both, distribution &amp; conflict resolution.
评论 #15009520 未加载
donquichotte将近 8 年前
TL&#x2F;DR: &quot;If Byzantine Fault Tolerance [0] does not create a huge advantage for your use-case, it is unlikely blockchain makes sense to consider over a traditional database.&quot;<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Byzantine_fault_tolerance" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Byzantine_fault_tolerance</a>
评论 #15009531 未加载
评论 #15008993 未加载
评论 #15008872 未加载
shandor将近 8 年前
That&#x27;s...surprisingly simple. As it happens I was just today lamenting to a colleague that for all the blockchain hype, I have yet to hear about any other relevant use case than those which have an ideological agenda to require decentralization at their very core.<p>Reading this it seems like the author comes pretty much to the same conclusion.<p>Is it really that simple? I feel like I must be missing something, because the hype is so real.
albertgoeswoof将近 8 年前
&gt; Blockchain, however, handles conflict resolution in quite a different way. If there is a net-split between Europe and the USA and two versions of the database emerge, it simply decides on re-connection to keep the entirety of the version that has received more traffic during the disruption (aka the longer chain). This means if the USA version wins, all of the modifications in the European version, even if there aren’t conflicts, are discarded. To reiterate, this means even if most of the interactions in Europe were just with other users in Europe and not in conflict with the USA version, all of those writes are thrown away regardless.<p>Is this really possible? I can&#x27;t see why not. If so could a DoS on a specific region of nodes that&#x27;s large enough to sustain it&#x27;s own sub chain for a short period be possible? This would be extremely dangerous if transactions were confirmed by the network on a chain that is eventually ignored.
评论 #15009799 未加载
评论 #15009853 未加载
CydeWeys将近 8 年前
Simple economics dictates when to use space on the Bitcoin blockchain: When your use case can afford it. This is because transactions require a fee to get confirmed in Bitcoin. And the fees are currently low enough that it supports most use cases; pretty much everything except microtransaction payments. With Lightning Network coming, even that may become economically feasible.
MichaelBurge将近 8 年前
Is &quot;blockchain&quot; singular, plural, or some kind of lowercase Proper Noun?<p>&gt; Blockchains fall<p>Okay, blockchain is singular, so it always refers to a single object.<p>There is a universe U of objects, and &quot;Blockchain&quot; is a predicate on U. So for any given x in U, &quot;Blockchain(x)&quot; is a proposition. In other words, we can ask whether something is a blockchain or not.<p>&gt; Step one is to figure out a framework for analyzing blockchain<p>Here it&#x27;s being used as a plural, like you might study a herd of blockchain. That&#x27;s okay in principle - some words are their own plurals, like &quot;sheep&quot; or &quot;fish&quot;. But above, it had an &quot;s&quot; at the end, so it can&#x27;t be plural.<p>Another possibility is that &quot;blockchain&quot; is the name of some specific object. &quot;Fred went to the store&quot; -&gt; &quot;I asked blockchain for some money&quot;.<p>That&#x27;s no problem: Your name can be &quot;Archer&quot; and you can study Archery.<p>There is a constant c in U such that Blockchain(c). Something somewhere is named &quot;blockchain&quot;.<p>&gt; blockchain does not have the capability to support<p>&gt; For everything Blockchain does worse than other databases<p>More evidence that he&#x27;s talking about some specific blockchain. Christians capitalize God in every sentence to show reverence, while Atheists tend to leave it as a lowercase god.<p>Is something similar happening here? Which blockchain are people even talking about?
评论 #15008919 未加载
评论 #15008915 未加载
hopfog将近 8 年前
I think Steem is pretty interesting from a developer perspective. Since all data lives on the blockchain it&#x27;s like having unlimited and unrestricted API access. It&#x27;s very different from having to submit to whatever restrictions and rules centralised social networks usually put on their APIs, if they have one at all.
EGreg将近 8 年前
You really need a blockchain for ONE THING:<p>To timestamp transactions in a distributed way.<p>Transactions can be signed, proving authorship.<p>At signing time, you can prove the transaction happened AFTER something else.<p>The only thing missing is PROVING THE TRANSACTION HAPPENED BEFORE SOMETHING ELSE.<p>For that, you need an incentive structure to keep each transaction be accepted by someone, somewhere, in a growing merkle tree.<p>That&#x27;s the blockchain.<p>However we don&#x27;t need proof of work to elect the next miner for every block. It leads to an incredibly wasteful arms race.<p>In fact we don&#x27;t even need <i>every</i> transaction to be verified by a miner. Only the merkle tree that happened before the block signing time.
评论 #15008818 未加载
评论 #15008947 未加载
评论 #15009560 未加载
dsacco将近 8 年前
I have a use case for a new blockchain&#x2F;cryptocurrency that I think is cool. Feel free to take the idea from me and implement it for an ICO :)<p>I propose &quot;whatcoin&quot;, a cryptocurrency designed to create a market for peer to peer media sharing based on the upload&#x2F;download ratio model used by what.cd and other private torrent trackers to incentive seeding and penalize leeching.<p>The whatcoin &quot;blockchain&quot; has a catalogue of all currently available music on the platform, so it doubles as the tracker and transaction ledger. The catalogue can have multiple copies of albums sorted by the specific release and the quality (lossless FLAC, lossy 320kbps, etc).<p>So let&#x27;s say you want to download a FLAC formatted 1988 MFSL release of Pink Floyd&#x27;s Dark Side of the Moon album. You&#x27;ll pay a specific amount of whatcoin from your own wallet based on the size of the files being downloaded, which will be distributed to the seeders you peer with. You&#x27;ll also pay a network transaction cost.<p>The network transaction costs fund the &quot;miners&quot;, or those who upload new, verified releases that are not on the whatcoin network yet. Those who upload the music are also strongly incentivized to continue seeding it, because they will be paid whatcoin <i>inversely proportional</i> to the number of other available seeders for the same files whenever someone chooses to download them. So the more exclusive the media is, the more lucrative it will be to host it.<p>Seeders will be paid for uploading media and leechers will pay for downloading media; leechers can then earn more whatcoin by continuing to seed the media they&#x27;ve just downloaded. Each upload&#x2F;download transaction is recorded on the whatcoin network, and the greatest economic opportunity is available to those who can upload popular new media and then seed it very early on.<p>This proposal is similar to Filecoin, but you&#x27;re paying to download new media instead of to store your own and retrieve it later. It also adds the extremely high fidelity media cataloguing that some private trackers have achieved. You could market it to the MPAA or RIAA as an &quot;enterprise blockchain&quot; the way banks are currently investigating it. The studios would be paid for new media they bring onto the platform, and indie artists could be paid for bringing their media onto the network instead of, say, SoundCloud or Bandcamp. If the media is popular enough then the original uploaders are heavily compensated and their hosting costs decrease over time, because there will be other seeders to maintain the media.<p>If large media firms didn&#x27;t go for this immediately, you could try and take this concept and ICO with it. Then start competing with Bandcamp and SoundCloud to capture the indie market. With the ICO funding and notoriety in that space, try to take on the RIAA.
评论 #15010250 未加载
评论 #15009825 未加载
评论 #15014209 未加载
EGreg将近 8 年前
Agreed. But also, it&#x27;s become <i>very</i> hard to get anything to get noticed organically.<p>It is not about quality. The same exact story submitted by different people or at different times may get 1 upvote and gets buried, or hits over 100 points on the front page. See this for example!<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14929067" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=14929067</a><p>I suspect most frontpage people ask their friends to upvote a story in the first few minutes.<p>Check out my own list of submissions for some examples. The vast majority is 1-2 points. Including SHOW HN stuff I worked hard on such as this:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13474714" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=13474714</a><p>Ironically, I got more upvotes on a comment I made, regarding this phenomenon.
评论 #15016508 未加载