I think all else can be achieved more efficiently by using a trusted third party write-only database, such as the ones available on AWS, and you’d also have the benefit of being able to go to court to seek relief. Some blockchain markets are basically reinventing banking systems and preexisting financial law - systems that have been built over centuries and have quite a bit of knowledge baked in.

I do like the shift to proof of stake from proof of work, but this tech is silly to me.

[–] redcalcium@lemmy.institute 10 points 9 months ago (1 children)

Proof of stake, while better for the environment compared to electricity-guzzling proof of work, actually shift the power of consensus to capital owners. In proof of work, any bloke with some computing power can participate in the swarm even if they don't own any crypto. In proof of stake, only those who own some crypto can participate in the swarm, and those who own more have more say.

You can say that proof of works also requires capital to buy computing power, but with the shift to proof of stake, the bar to participate has been raised. If can't just use a spare computer to join now, you actually need some capital to buy some stake before you can participate. It's a big boy club now, a tool to help the rich get richer.

[–] explodicle@local106.com 3 points 9 months ago

To add: mining profits are minimized with difficulty adjustment, but there's no such mechanism with staking - profits are maximized instead.

[–] kool_newt@lemm.ee 2 points 9 months ago

IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.

YES!!!!!

The only thing you're not getting quite right is what it means to be "illegal" and whether the groups making this decision have anyone's interest in mind except their own.

When doing right is or becomes illegal because our country is run by a fascist, that "illegal" money will save lives.

[–] FreeFacts@lemmy.world 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (1 children)

I know of one use case that seems viable, there is a digital housing market service in my country (called Dias). It uses blockchain to verify transactions related to selling and buying houses. That includes proof of sales, ownership, bank transaction status etc. The blockchain is operated by all the major banks. Their incentive is that it increases the security of the transactions thanks to the immutable digital trail, and also the fact that no single entity owns the "database" so no entity can alter it, or skim service fees etc from the others.

[–] cooltrainer_frank@lemmy.world 9 points 9 months ago

But if you have any conflict with it, you have to get a lawyer involved right? It doesn't seem like it provides value to a real estate transaction, just seems like a use case for block chain

[–] Trainguyrom@reddthat.com -1 points 9 months ago

IMO, blockchain technology is good for one use case: illegal transactions.

If the friction of translating your fiat money into cryptocurrencies and back is low enough it can be a very good method for collecting digital donations. Potentially no fees to send/receive money, no real national restrictions to speak of and then its stored as a value that the recipient can use however they want, plus donors can trace where the money goes if the person they donated to then turns around and donates a portion to another person receiving donations on the blockchain.

Basically the exact same benefits as the use case of illegal transactions, but at least for good rather than usually-not-good