HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

⬐ LinuxBender

That is a good video. I do have a couple questions. I asked these questions at a company that implemented blockchain but was never really given a complete answer.

- Who runs the ledgers and what guarantee is there aside from cryptographic smoke that the entities/corporations running the ledgers can't collude? This gets into the question of independent cryptographic audits and looking for mathematical back doors. How can one know with certainty that one entity can't make subtle manipulations to this systems/markets?

- How do you delete data from the blockchain? Let's say someone decides to use blockchain for identity management. Some day a court agrees that a person needs to be protected under witness protection but their identity is in the blockchain. How do you remove it? Not revoke it, but completely remove all traces of it?

⬐ wmf

How do you know blockchain actually works?

It's no different than any other software; it has to gradually earn confidence over time. Major math flaws were found in Zcash and more recently ECDSA threshold signatures and they had to be patched. Likewise understanding of cryptoeconomics has evolved (see selfish mining and MEV as examples) and will continue to evolve. It happens.

How do you delete data from the blockchain?

You don't put the data on the blockchain in the first place; you put a pointer. This doesn't solve all cases but it's better than nothing.

⬐ kevincox

> How do you remove it? Not revoke it, but completely remove all traces of it?

You can't.

You can't really remove anything that has been made public. You can try but odds are there is a copy somewhere.

For bitcoin: if everyone was cooperating you could update the protocol to replace that block with a version that had the desired information removed, however this block and its replacement would require special verification because the normal rules will obviously fail (because the normal rules forbid change).

⬐ LinuxBender

Thankyou. That was my understanding as well. I wasn't sure if something had evolved/changed but sound like it hasn't.

⬐ vmception

Why are you looking for something to evolve? Your writing suggests a pejorative term?

Although miners can collude to replace data, there are still copies of the prior data from people who can't contribute to the collusions and it would be major news at that point in time. Crisis of confidence have occurred in these systems and every major service has managed them before (typically by either rejecting deposits and withdrawals client side, or extending the amount of time necessary to determine if the content of a block stays where it is), and then the chain continues as normal when the disruption is gone (time to check if block content stays drops back lower).

⬐ LinuxBender

No pejorative implied, apologies if it came out that way. I expect all software to constantly evolve and adapt to the needs of its user base. Given that I am not a cryptocurrency user I have not kept current with how things work.

⬐ vmception

What's evolved is the operational security of the IT services. Before, most of the scary issues that you described were only scary because they hadn't come up yet and were populated by theoretical conjecture. Then people realized they weren't scary and made processes to still run their business during network disruptions, no different than relying on other digital platforms.

⬐ guilhas

Some interesting points, but very myopic. He says he is talking about blockchain crypto in general not bitcoin, and then goes and enumerate bitcoin limitations

He ignores that there are a lot faster networks other than Bitcoin

He ignores that there are more private networks like Monero

Even if blockchain crypto is a step behind cash, which is being phased out in most places, it is still a step ahead of all other virtual finance platforms, and will probably replaced them

Everything else, blockchains are tools... We just need to use them to our advantage. Dystopian futures will not cease because of it or lack thereof

⬐ dezmou

He first say that google servers are decentralized, but after his explanations, the google servers are more like distributed than decentralized.

⬐ karmakaze

If there was a good argument, it should make sense in plain text:

> and you can think of this like the google search that's provided > google search is a centralized search system yet the the actual computation for that search is actually distributed across the entire planet > so uh that provides a perfect analogy for how uh bitcoin and uh litecoin and dogecoin how all of these different coins work they're actually centralized systems providing a centralized service while at the same time having the computation spread out across the entire planet

Totally missing the point that centralization is about who has control, not where things happen. Distributing operation but not control of those operations isn't meaningful here, which is what makes Google search not a good analogy for blockchains. I'm not pro-blockchain (until we find effective use/implementation), but I'm definitely anti-misinformation.

⬐ whoisninja

just curious, have you heard of lightning network ? try things out, try breez wallet. you can pay with lightning at McDonalds, Starbucks in El Salvador

rest of your claims about blockchain, privacy etc - are correct

the "Crypto" and "web3" is all scams

⬐ defaultprimate

LN is mathematically guaranteed to end up centralized.

⬐ whoisninja

how so?

⬐ whoisninja

how so?

also it doesn't impact Bitcoin, you can self-custody most of your wealth. Put what's needed to transact on lightning (checking account)

⬐ defaultprimate

https://medium.com/@jonaldfyookball/mathematical-proof-that-...

In short, if it didn't (it does), then we've proven P = NP and the very foundation of Bitcoin itself crumbles.

Self custody of bitcoin is not self custody of wealth. Not your fiat not your wealth.

⬐ whoisninja

when you realize this author makes money from shitcoin content:

https://news.bitcoin.com/author/jonald/

drink the kool-aid , rather than trying the software itself.

good luck

⬐ whoisninja

fyi before downvoting: this article's author works at bitcoin.com which is run by Bitcoin-cash people, it was an attack on Bitcoin that failed

read the book: the blocksize wars

⬐ 988747

It is a logical fallacy to focus on who the author is. You either can point out where the error in his reasoning is, or not. Because it sounded pretty convincing to me: to participate in routing a payment you need to have at least the paid amount tied in the lightning network, which favors people with a lot of spare cash, who can have more channels open, and process more payments.

⬐ danlugo92

No, this is FUD.

Most people will only open one channel ever in their lifetime.

Your scenario is correct only if you will only send, most people won't, most people will first receive (get paid) then send.

Say someone wants in, he opens a $20 channel, maybe he wants to pay for some small stuf at first so $20 will do.

But then this person will get paid for his work, say $1k.. his channel isn't constrained to those first $20, this channel is now "widened" to $1k.

⬐ defaultprimate

Ok now show the mathematical proof or demonstrate the error in his.

Everything that doesn't carry the coiner narrative of "number go up" is FUD

⬐ danlugo92

Mathematical proof? This is code we're talking about.

I don't have to show mathematical proof, but in fact, the code is open source, so you can go and see for yourself what I said is true and immutable.

⬐ defaultprimate

If what you described is true (it isn't), what allows the person to only open one channel?

⬐ defaultprimate

Do you have a rebuttal of any substance or just personal attacks on the author?

The irony of a bitcoiner accusing someone else of drinking the Kool aid. Lots of people participated and made money in Madoff's scheme for decades too.

⬐ kayamon

https://murchandamus.medium.com/i-have-just-read-jonald-fyoo...

⬐ defaultprimate

You'll notice that he refuses to address any aspect of the and doesn't understand graph theory as much as he's pretending to, as noted in the top comment on the post.

⬐ GLGirty

I generally agree with his conclusions, but I found his argument about centralization very weak. Bitcoin on mars seems like an impractical thought experiment compared to the actual reality that 50 miners (maybe less) control enough of the network to seize control when they desire. [1]

I wish he'd spent some time discussing the fact that bitcoin's 'value' is proportional to the electricity needed for hashing, and that property will favor aggregating control to a few actors at whatever geographic local has the cheapest electricity. The political and environmental shenanigans exploited by these actors is a deep dive, too, but out of scope for his thesis.

[1] https://www.tomshardware.com/news/study-finds-bitcoin-more-c...

⬐ danlugo92

> 50 miners (maybe less) control enough of the network to seize control when they desire.

This is FUD.

The counterparty to miners are the nodes, and they are the ones in control of the network. There are about 47000 nodes and anyone can run one (this is why the block size is small) on like $200 worth of hardware.

⬐ rspeele

What does control of the network mean?

An entity controlling the majority of mining power can produce the longest chain. But nodes respect the longest valid chain (by their definition of validity), so they can reject a change supported by miners, by considering that chain invalid. That supports your idea that the 47,000 nodes, which anybody can run, control the network.

But if there are competing definitions of validity, what really matters to me is the version of "validity" accepted by the counterparty I wish to send coins to. In today's world that is pretty much exchanges, since not very many businesses accept Bitcoin directly.

If there is a fork of Bitcoin where miners are in contention with node operators, the winner is the side of the fork that Binance+Coinbase+FTX+Kraken decide to treat as "BTC" and the loser is the side they treat as "Bitcoin Kinda-Sorta".

⬐ danlugo92

The exchanges scenario you propose is an interesting one, and could happen.

Hopefully lightning makes more exchanges pop up and diffuse this.