this post was submitted on 13 Nov 2024
963 points (98.1% liked)

People Twitter

5230 readers
826 users here now

People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.

RULES:

  1. Mark NSFW content.
  2. No doxxing people.
  3. Must be a tweet or similar
  4. No bullying or international politcs
  5. Be excellent to each other.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 150 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (54 children)

Blockchain is a solution in search of a problem. A way to establish trust while not trusting any party is a cool concept, but in the real world it's far easier to establish a source of trust.

[–] LainTrain@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (22 children)

solution in search of a problem

Idk I think centralised trust is a problem in and of itself but you can just look to history and world events that created bank runs and financial crashes like y'know - 2008, a year later the bitcoin ledger began.

it's far easier to establish a source of trust.

Yes but it also comes with problems as mentioned above. Blockchain tech being used for scams if anything is evidence of it being a mature and functional technology for finance because under capitalism it's all inherently a scam of some sort.

That said we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of good, I'm glad the technology exists even if I don't think it achieved what it set out to do quite as well as one would've hoped, if for no other reason than the fact we can all just buy any drugs online now with one day delivery instead of being stabbed on the street after calling some number like barbarians in the olden days.

[–] Cethin@lemmy.zip 19 points 4 days ago (6 children)

The blockchain doesn't prevent a run on the "banks." If everyone decides to cash out at the same time out of fear of a crash then the currency crashes and there isn't enough money to liquidate everything (until it has no value). It isn't an improvement for that. If anything, it's a negative. Banks can implement policies to prevent it, but you can't really do so with crypto.

It would be useful for things like deeds and contracts. Instead of having a bank hold it and provide proof you could store it on the blockchain. There are a handful of good uses for it, but it's generally not useful for the stuff most people think it would be.

[–] Tar_alcaran@sh.itjust.works 5 points 4 days ago

Well, you can't do fractional-reserve banking with bitcoin (or any other coin I know of), so in that way, a "run" on a bitcoin can only ever exhaust the supply. lending out more than you have requires trust, and that's not available in a blockchain structure.

On the other hand, fractional reserve banking is the foundation of all modern financial systems, so it's not really a thing we're going to scrap.

It would be useful for things like deeds and contracts. Instead of having a bank hold it and provide proof you could store it on the blockchain. There are a handful of good uses for it, but it’s generally not useful for the stuff most people think it would be.

Well, yes but no.

There's a lot of problems with blockchain deeds, and one of the big ones is confirming the first owner. What's to prevent me from minting a smart-contract that says I own your house? Or that I own a house that doesn't even exist? In the real world, we've solved those problems (and MANY more) with notaries and central registration systems. At the interchange of digital-ownership and real-world, physical assets, you're always going to need a trusted party to verify that the two match. And at that point, you don't need the blockchain at all.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (51 replies)