Hello,

I have been researching about blockchains and stuff and it all seems like a big scam. It’s not sustainable and can be replaced by a simple database.

is there any legitimate use cases of blockchains or it is all just a big scam?

  • JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml
    891·
    16 days ago

    Any application where you want to record something publicly without the possibility to alter it and in absence of a central authority.

    A database requires a central authority so it doesn’t cover the same use cases.

    • mormund@feddit.org
      27·
      16 days ago

      Good summary, a few additions from my side:

      • Being public is not required. E.g. banks could form an internal block chain shared only with other banks.
      • Blockchains are a database. An immutable and usually distributed database.
      • msage@programming.dev
        31·
        15 days ago

        I would argue against blockchains being a database… its more of a ‘signed sequential log’ than a database.

        • mormund@feddit.org
          3·
          15 days ago

          Well, Wikipedia describes it sufficiently vague: “a database is an organized collection of data”. But is a linked list on its own a database? I’d say the blockchain itself is the data structure but any software using it is most likely a database.

    • Ch3rry314@piefed.socialEnglish
      62·
      16 days ago

      Could this be a true voting record? Votes would be transparent, but as you say, unalterable.

      • JumpyWombat@lemmy.ml
        281·
        16 days ago

        If the political vote is public, voters are exposed to blackmail or they may sell their vote. It’s a bad idea unfortunately.

      • Otter@lemmy.caEnglish
        17·
        16 days ago

        https://xkcd.com/2030/

        I appreciate that when you find a relevant xkcd, the explainxkcd page also has relevant information to the discussion:

        https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php?title=2030%3A_Voting_Software

        When the reporter follows the interview up with a mention of blockchain technology, Megan and Cueball reflexively tell the reporter to avoid any voting system using the technology at all costs. Blockchain is a relatively new technology that is intended to solve some computer security issues by making it difficult to doctor old data. However, in the process of solving the old computer security issues, it has introduced new computer security issues that have not yet been ironed out; for instance, it doesn’t solve input fraud issues, only data-doctoring fraud, so if a program caused the voting machine to record a vote for candidate B whenever a vote for candidate A was cast (such a program could be uploaded to the voting machines through USB, or through the internet which the voting machine must be connected to for blockchain), blockchain would not prevent it. Blockchain has also had a large number of high-profile scams, thefts, and implementations with critical security holes. Thus, Megan and Cueball may not trust this blockchain solution because of this history.

        Blockchain is really great at preventing post-facto data changes. With blockchain you can somewhat guarantee that no one comes in after the election and changes the votes on the machines. (Unless they’re handling the blockchain in a stupid fashion, for example without the distribution.) But you cannot prevent tampering with the machines themselves, such as making them record votes that didn’t happen, or tampering the data before it’s written to the blockchain.

        Also, the security issues that Blockchain solves could also be solved via write-once memory, which would be more secure and more difficult to doctor.

        Most computer security specialists are more worried about programs that randomly and/or deliberately misreport a vote, than people changing the votes after they’re already recorded, so blockchain would solve an issue that most computer security specialists are less worried about, while causing new issues (the perpetual internet connection among them).

        • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
          81·
          16 days ago

          Whereas voting with a piece of paper can be tracked and validated by a severely myopic 6 year old. And you can recount it. You can’t “recount” a blockchain if that’s your only source.

          And if you do both, then why bother with the blockhain?

          • Clent@lemmy.dbzer0.comEnglish
            24·
            16 days ago

            You can’t “recount” a blockchain if that’s your only source.

            What are you trying to say here?

            If each vote is a block in the chain them it is definitely recountable.

            If I get a reciept of my vote’s hash in the chain, I can confirm it’s being included.

            The real issue with using a blockchain is it would anonymize the process.

            • Tar_Alcaran@sh.itjust.works
              8·
              15 days ago

              If each vote is a block in the chain them it is definitely recountable.

              That’s not what it means. With this system, you can’t independently verify what happened. You can only also look at the blockchain and see that some hash has registered some vote.

              But you don’t know if that is actually true. You can’t see if pushing the red button makes the red vote come out. You can manually count if you want, but the original billet doesn’t exist, only a processed form of it on the blockchain.

              If I get a reciept of my vote’s hash in the chain, I can confirm it’s being included.

              Only THAT it’s included. Otherwise you have something linking you to your vote, which is bad