Is blockchain's potential overhyped?

[russ_watters]

Go to your public library and search for past issues of Scientific American. Both currency and non-currency applications are mentioned. The general topic is secure communications; messages with guaranteed delivery, non-falsifiable, non-deniable, and anonymous (identity can be provided in the content, not the delivery). Blockchain is one approach.
sted source!
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/blockchain-enhances-privacy-secur...
There's a much bigger world than bitcoin within blockchain ...
Jen Schwartz, Scientific American senior editor, discusses her piece on a deep dive into blockchain technology.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2

For some Innovative uses of block chain technology. see
https://www.nasdaq.com/article/4-innovative-use-cases-for-blockchain-cm901636

I was thinking of the WWW analogy before the video said it, but for a different reason: the WWW truly exploded onto the scene in 1995, with immediate acceptance/adoption and wide-ranging utility. Its potential became real in months. Blockchain technology has now been in use for 9 years and still remains strictly one use, with no wider adoption. All of the potential uses remain completely hypothetical. So after 9 years, I think the quote in the OP must be considered trivially true: nobody wants it.

 

[nsaspook]

The block-chain can't be hacked, per se, there's currently too much computing power behind it (I'm no expert, I'm just typing based on my limited knowledge), so I don't understand your question. If you have control over your own wallet, there's no way it can be "hacked", the problem is when people leave their crypto with the exchange, which I for one can't understand for exactly that reason; if these people took a little more care their crypto they would never get hacked. What exactly are you asking?

The major risk for the current Blockchain implementation is a deep weakness in ECC. (Elliptical curve cryptography)
http://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=1004
http://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=1917

There is also the 51% of the network attack.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

 

[BWV]

Bitcoin apparently would not be safe from a quantum computer, and I wonder how the technology would fare overall if and when quantum computers become operational

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/...ers-pose-imminent-threat-to-bitcoin-security/

 

[anorlunda]

Bitcoin apparently would not be safe from a quantum computer, and I wonder how the technology would fare overall if and when quantum computers become operational

That's a good point, but it is not limited to bitcoin. It could mean the erosion of trust and security in nearly all aspects of civilization. Science Friday did a recent segment about new technologies for making fake videos, good enough to fool almost anyone. I'm willing to hope that the military can keep our nuclear launch codes secure, but in the broader context we are moving in the direction that makes trusted communication an oxymoron.

 

[Rive]

in the broader context we are moving in the direction that makes trusted communication an oxymoron.

At the end we will be back to the good old combination of the leather dossier and a horde of guards...

 

[nsaspook]

That's a good point, but it is not limited to bitcoin. It could mean the erosion of trust and security in nearly all aspects of civilization. Science Friday did a recent segment about new technologies for making fake videos, good enough to fool almost anyone. I'm willing to hope that the military can keep our nuclear launch codes secure, but in the broader context we are moving in the direction that makes trusted communication an oxymoron.

I think we can build trusted systems (it's mainly public-key cryptography systems based on factoring large numbers that are at risk not all encryption systems "symmetric encryption ciphers ") that resist future computing systems but humans will always be the weak link in the chain of security.
https://csrc.nist.gov/csrc/media/pr...aphy/documents/pqcrypto-2016-presentation.pdf

 

[qspeechc]

The major risk for the current Blockchain implementation is a deep weakness in ECC. (Elliptical curve cryptography)
http://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=1004
http://blog.bettercrypto.com/?p=1917

There is also the 51% of the network attack.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

That's the actual problem with things like Bitcoin, the vast majority of users don't understand it at all, they just like the gains (I'm not claiming I undestand it either).

Anyway, do you work for the NSA?

 

[nsaspook]

That's the actual problem with things like Bitcoin, the vast majority of users don't understand it at all, they just like the gains (I'm not claiming I undestand it either).

Anyway, do you work for the NSA?

No. A long time ago I was a military guy that worked in the field.

 

[FactChecker]

There is also the 51% of the network attack.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp

This is where bitcoin security is counting on a widely dispersed, large number of bitcoin miners. A smaller application of the blockchain approach may have less security.

 

[nsaspook]

This is where bitcoin security is counting on a widely dispersed, large number of bitcoin miners. A smaller application of the blockchain approach may have less security.

The problem is that bitcoins computing power is not widely dispersed because of the increasing difficulty of mining blocks. When it was possible for some guy with a few mining rigs to break even or make a small amount of money it was a lot more secure. Operations in China controls at least 80% of all Bitcoin blockchain computer power due to cheap dirty power. Bitcoin is not immune to the 80/20 power rule of power concentration over time.
https://blockchain.info/pools
https://www.buybitcoinworldwide.com/mining/china/
https://spectrum.ieee.org/computing/networks/why-the-biggest-bitcoin-mines-are-in-china

It's currently a big financial advantage for the pool miners to keep the system blockchain stable (sometimes to the disadvantage of possible security and performance upgrades) because coins are being awarded for their current investment in systems but that won't always be true.

https://hacken.io/wp-content/uploads/The-Rush-for-Hashpower.pdf

Concentration of power attacks.

 

[Baluncore]

The first big quantum computer will put all other cryptocurrency miners out of business.
Will blockchain technology have to keep ahead of the advancing technology in order to be trusted.
Yesterday there was some news about activity in the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. It did not involve their supercomputers.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-...aff-implicated-in-cryptocurrency-ring/9524208

 

[kith]

I've recently read two articles by Kai Stinchcombe. He not only argues that the blockchain is overhyped but also that a future where the blockchain replaces the presently needed trust in people and established institutions would be rather dystopian. Money quotes about these two points:

"In fact, I would assert that there is no single person in existence who had a problem they wanted to solve, discovered that an available blockchain solution was the best way to solve it, and therefore became a blockchain enthusiast."

"It’s not trustless, you’re trusting in the software (and your ability to defend yourself in a software-driven world), instead of trusting other people."