2 days to fix a database?


I’m not saying it’s a good thing!


@taipeir, I’ll respond to your response as soon as I can.
One high level remark: apart from bitcoin, what benefits does decentralisation actually bring?


ZOOM OUT. This time last year it was just above $10. That’s a rise of 7,875% which puts your paltry 16% in the shade. :laughing:


Economics (add in expletitive of choice here)


Something like a blockchain can remove the need for a trusted third party.


I have provided multiple examples throughout the thread . Not repeating myself again.


So wrong.




Do you understand percentages?

At 850$ current value, how much is it up in a year?


Russian nuclear scientists arrested for ‘Bitcoin mining plot’


Maybe it should say ‘Millionaire Scientists’


Which makes some sense for the bitcoin application, or other currencies (e.g. for dark market transactions). But for most commercial application, that’s a bit moot. E.g. the Kodak coin nonsense: why not just operate a centralised database? Can still have cryptographic security and Merkle tree etc., No benefit to decentralised element, but huge overhead and inefficiency.
Same applies for most of these supposed commercial applications. But I’ll look later at Taipeir’s highlights.


Yes I do. 8,400%. Why are you struggling with such simple calculations?


But what value does the decentralisation bring?
I’ve looked through their site. They say “No one can stop your lending or borrowing, not even ETHLend. All lending is possible via the Ethereum Smart Contract. No assets are held by ETHLend.”, in which case what is the point of ETHLend itself?
Why could this business not work just as well with ETHLend operating in a centralised way as a marketplace for peer-to-peer lending?

Again, what is the point of the decentralisation? Is it expected that this project would actually live on and function if the Enigma/Catalyst team evaporated?

Like filecoin?

A fair house can’t work as a casino, it needs to make money so the odds have to favour the house. I guess what you mean is that the “unfairness” is consistent and pre-agreed: e.g. if we were doing an online lotto, if I pick a number (1-6, stake $1, get it right get $5, wrong lose) a “fair” game would be one where a truly random number generator picked the number afterwards, rather than always picking a number other than my one. However, you can (by pre-hashes etc.,) make that fair without blockchain.

Your examples boil down to the following:
Q: What is decentralisation needed for?
A: it’s needed for decentralised X

That’s pretty much a tautology. My point was what’s the benefit of decentralisation for many of these cases? I see some of the benefit for BitCoin (or another currency) especially if it’s used for illegal transactions, but much less so for many of the other projects.

not 51% of owners, 51% of hashing power in most proof of work systems. That can be a very small group of people, and in many cases a much smaller number (20-30%) can effectively block the system (while 51% allows the equivalent of hard fork).

Also, it doesn’t even allow that sort of untrusted but no swindle interaction you promise. If I want to buy goods how do we navigate the trick of whether I send the money first or you send the goods first. Whoever goes first has to trust the other in some way (and with e.g. BitCoin I’ve no avenue to achieve a charge-back, which I would with an intermediary or even a credit card.


P2P lending mostly isn’t. FT have covered the evolution extensively, e.g. … still-won/

Most people don’t really understand what banks do. Including myself.


A post script to my earlier note:
I do “get it” if people want decentralisation “just because”. Chris DeRose uses terms related to “morality” and “virtue” in this sense. I’m not sure I agree with his vocabulary, but ultimately I think I agree with the ideas. For example, in the past he and others bought stuff with Bitcoin just to normalise the use of bitcoin as a medium of exchange, even if it was a lot more hassle or more expensive: because of a belief in the technology and its “morals”.

For my part: I’m a believer in Free Software and Open Source, and have used GNU/Linux and open source tools even when that meant a lot of hassle. Part of that was about commitment to principles, and a belief in long-term outcomes (probable, or even just possible) based on adherence… Decentralisation, censorship resistance, and other attributes of some of these Blockchain schemes may have similar traction for certain people. I even have some direct sympathy with those ideas, just not enough to compensate the objections I see.


BTC price about to break 10k again.
Told y’all you can never write off bitcoin.

Ethereum not far off 1k and we are only getting started this year.


Dumb move. 8DD