Submitted by dogonix t3_zsfutk in Futurology
runefar t1_j1ezy58 wrote
Reply to comment by Dan_Felder in The Metaverse: More Hype Than Substance? by dogonix
Also an example of one NASA blockchain project https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190000022 though naturally they tend to primarily experiment with hyperledger at the moment so using a private ledger, but with similar other aspects. There is some different arguments I would say personally on public versus private ledgers and in fact how you can create networks that fulfill the mix of the needs of both but that it is a whole other story. Be aware though this is likely not one of their priority investigations of course and even at NASA different departments will be unaware of the investigations of others even when it seems like they should be investigating the same aspect. I know this from personal experience and it can be so awkward lol XD but NTRS host a good amount of blockchain relevant project mainly from names. Of course some on NTRS to look out for are those from competitions but most are from ames
Really though as I emphasized earlier, this is more an ecosystem with both its own benefits and difficulties. It isn't solely about a transition to decentralization though for different areas that may come with different benefits. Creating further aspects to facilitate different needs sometimes exactly the same needs in ways we couldn't do before because different interaction do require reformating our system in different ways at times.
And yes, we shouldn't be overly confident in security either, as I emphasized earlier I do believe that account for the human side is very important. In fact that is often my issue with a lot of policies around blockchain which is that they are overly standardized.
Also what you said isn't exactly true about reverting transactions but that can be network dependent. In fact, It can be easier to track transaction on blockchain without indirectly messing up anyone up unlike on the banking network where if someone steal money the people who are along the path also have a high chance of having their money reverted too. In the cases where there has been a direct to reversion, blockchain turned out to be able to be better than the banking systems at it because it didn't put the people along the way at risk as well. Interestingly cases where it is held in a centralized institution rather are an exception though because they are in fact not decentralized and are in fact closer to our centralized banking system funny enough and those have been where the biggest scams are. It isn't perfect though and there is difficulties and that is why we need to make more people understand it too and not overstandardize our regulation, but build off the technology too so that the laws can not be solely based on how the fiancance was done previously or how fiance is done but how the technology works and is likely to develop too to be able to better counter that problem. It goes into this whole thing about pseudoanonymity versus it being coded into the ledger and what that means from a more functional standpoint when we get into situations like that(of course actually it will also have been visible that it was moved too in the code). In addition this also goes into the whole thing about the difference between an architectural technology versus a system on top. Even bitcoin can be viewed as an architectural technology and more complicated systems can and potentially should be built on top with visions of those aspects though their are arguments for why or why not as well as different programs,
Dan_Felder t1_j1f2an4 wrote
I don't know enough about the tech to evaluate this, but one of the weaknesses of blockchain from a security standpoint is that you inherently spread the information in more places so all the computers can check it. I have doubts it's genuinely the best way to keep information anonymous vs other forms of decentralization. Again, I don't know enough about this situation, but I find it amusing how the two major aspects of Blockchain people often push are the "transparency" on the one hand and "total lack of transparency" on the other.
runefar t1_j1f6dcf wrote
Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technologies. It also isn't transparency versus total lack of transparency and I try to explain this to so many people because it seems like people have an issue imagining a binary that doesn't exist. It is more that the ledger itself interests as a form of transparency around the transactions that are occuring while you can have more protection around the data itself that is being actively transported. You can not get this level of protection with a centralized system because if someone successfully penetrates the centralized system they now have access to your data. With a decentralized system, it is as if there are multiple nodes delegated to different tasks as well as interconnected within a mesh style.
When they disconnect from the network, the network as a whole is still up and if they did any transaction peer to peer off the network when they reconnect to the network, the conceus mechanism will go through the process it needs to do to verify those transactions)done by stacking, mining or in a PoX both). This means even a network that operated its transactions off the internet through peer to peer transaction can then be enabled to be settled within the network through the conseus mechanism when it eventually does reconnect.
Literally all forms of decentralization could be described by "spread the information in more places". Also it is their miners or stacker that are running a cryptographic conseus mechanism to dedicate that energy towards verifying the rest of the network. They are much more facilitating the flowthrough of the network than looking at what exactly is in your data. It is more about conseus of the transactions that occurred within the network
​
Dan_Felder t1_j1f8dw4 wrote
>Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technolo--
The stuff you just posted is super basic. I just don't have the arrogance to dig into an academic paper on a specific argument for a use case and analyze it against the technical and security risks of other forms of securing data in an industry I've never worked in, one which has a lot of complex and difficult-to-foresee incentives, limitations, etc. There's too big an information black hole for me to feel comfortable making a judgment about the various competing cases here in the practical world of solving real world problems more efficiently than other problems.
I've seen enough people confidently asserting blockchain will replace every industry and pretty much nothing but wild failure - even in the things they were *specifically* designed for; securing transactions and protecting artists. Both have been calamitous failures, as the inventor of the tech admitted to.
I have also already said that backing up data without governing transactions is a possible use case and may have special interest for governments, since there is no need to reverse transactions or deal with the other downstream problems when you're just collecting data - and I already said that decentralized models have use cases.
I doubt it's efficient to do this with exsiting government records vs other options for securing them, but it's possible that highly sensitive intelligence data that is building new networks from the ground-up anyway makes sense to use them. However, I don't know enough about the internal incentives, programs, day to day work, alternative models, etc to make a clear value judgment and don't pretend I do.
runefar t1_j1ff9zg wrote
Fair enough though when you talk about failure remember that it is important to remember that all technology also works with the social systems too and that many of those failures are more to do the fact that we have to over time both adapt on both sides too. That has to be considered as well in what a failure is. Is it a failure in the technology or a failure for both the social and technology to mesh.... but yes there are things to be built on and interegrations to be done better.... that is why ecosystems exist afterall
if you want to talk more just dm so we don't bother anyone else. see you around. I may have information to provide you but you are in fact indirectly being less specific about information you are asking for then you realize so naturally I am starting with the basic when it sounds like you don't grasps key elements. Even more different systems will be more or less hyper specific about intersection to some degree and depending on how you can envision a system I may or may not be able to describe how it is done simply because I don't know about the other technology requirements of the system and then how they may work together. That in the end affects aspects of the solution too and how they manifest as well in a design
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments