1934
Blockchain: the wave of the future
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 02 Feb 2024
1934 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45689 readers
569 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
Yea the rally against block chain tech is stupid as fuck. It consumes nothing in the grand scale...do people not realize a lot of large enterprises have ~200k nodes give or take? Bigger companies can have in the million range. 200k machines is a joke.
Edit: I can see a lot of people just hate block chain tech without understanding anything tech wise lol
The nodes aren’t the issue. It’s the fact that those nodes have to expend at least the same amount of energy every single time a record is added and the larger the ledger, the more energy is needed. Blockchain is somewhat unique in that regard.
It really feels like SOMEWHERE there was a legitimate use for this for very mission-critical stuff that might need to be immutable once published and kept for posterity...
...but then it just became yet another speculative asset to make magic money that fueled stupid monkey jpegs.
The pursuit of profit benefits mankind only by the occasional anomalous accident.
100%. Capitalism is great until it reaches a peak where people who provide no value except in the wealth they’ve amassed are the ones who gain the most from it. You can succeed simply by being born with wealth and having no other value because other people who do have value will need you.
This, exactly. Blockchain could have been used for tracking information publishing dates and such, but it is used for converting energy into IOUs
The point in OP is that "blockchain" was not a new thing. The Merkle Tree was patented in 1979, meaning that it has been free for decades. Most programmers might never have a use for it but they still encounter it every time they use git (which is older than bitcoin).
So, if you're not aware of this, that's because it is very technical and nothing to do with cryptocurrencies.
You do understand what a DB is right? Like there's millions of them...hell right now typing out this comment has one marking it. And then you're downloading it to read it... that's a transaction. Except there are millions of people reading comments constantly on all social media platforms.
My comment here has more bits in it than a single transaction.
With the electricity used to validate a single crypto transaction you could do thousands or even millions of DB queries.
Yes, everything uses electricity. That's like saying that it's fine if you kill one cow per day to eat its ear and throw the rest because hundreds of them are killed every day in farms.
Wasting so much electricity in such a non efficient manner so a decentralization cult member can have his wet dream of using non-government money makes no sense.
DBs are not the same as a blockchain. A DB doesn’t have to hash all previous data before it every time the DB is written to. You can read and write to a specific spot in a DB without ever knowing anything else about the DB. With blockchain, inserts have to be successive and they have to reference every previous insert to validate that the entry series is unbroken. On top of that, for things like Bitcoin, every other client also has to validate it since the ledger is shared.
There’s a reason blockchain is significant. Otherwise, why didn’t stuff like Bitcoin exist prior to it? Databases, in some for or another, have existed for decades. Blockchains are immutable, that’s why. The order of entries matters and validation is a requirement.
DBs still update their tables every time someone writes to it. And there are millions of DBs being written to every second. It's absolutely comparable.
We're not comparing millions of DBs to a single blockchain. We're comparing 1 DB to 1 blockchain instance. If you had millions of blockchains, you would use exponentially more energy for the same data vs. a normal database. Updating tables is not the same thing as hashing and validating every prior entry in the table.
There aren't millions of block chains....lol your argument is bullshit.
There doesn’t need to be. My argument is not bullshit, you just don’t understand the differences between blockchain and a standard database and are pretending you do which makes the argument impossible for you to understand.
Lol no I do, you clearly don't have a clue what you're talking about. The amount of DBs we have alone, that's not counting any other compute servers or even WS dwarfs all the block chain out there. This article is a nothing burger and is complete bullshit. Even the study they referenced doesn't know the exact amount...as it points out .6 to 2.2% is their estimated use...but this shit article went with the higher numbers because it's great for people like you who hate any tech that you clearly don't understand.
Yeah, people tend hate what they don't understand. Especially when most people think think every blockchain performs exactly like bitcoin (which is proof of work). Bitcoin is slow and power hungry and would never actually be usable by the masses for everyday transactions. But it was the first and will likely be a "digital gold" for a long time
But it's not the only one and in time everyone will be using blockchain technology. It's so much more convenient and useful than most realize. The Solana blockchain has secured a big partnership with Visa that can be read up on if anyone is interested.
You don't even understand blockchain so I'm not sure what your edit is all about. You're comparing blockchain to a database in your replies as if they're comparable.
When it comes to power...it absolutely is comparable....but most of you have no clue how much compute we use daily in terms of power. Acting like the block chain sucks down anywhere near the amount of power we use on even in the corporate world is hilarious...you know a lot of colos have their own sub stations right?
The only person here who doesn't know what they're talking about is you. If you took a standard DB (MySQL or Postgres, for example) and took that same information and stored it on a blockchain instead, you'd use far more energy on the blockchain and the issue would only get exponentially worse as the chain got bigger. Normal DBs don't need to hash new entries or validate them against previous entries that are also hashed.
Yes because there are millions and millions of block chains...lol don't fool yourself into knowing what your talking about.
And yes DBs are only one DB no one ever has HA stacks or redundancy built in...lol
Are you dense, man? No one said that. They’re saying that one blockchain would take several hundred DBs to equal its energy use. You’re wrong and doubling down for some reason and it’s just making you look silly.
I said that genius...go check my posts...the fuck you arguing about? I literally said that the amount of DBs we have make the miniscule amount of large block chains out there look like nothing. Then you show up and say one DB isn't comparable to one large fucking blockchain....no shit.
You did not say that. That’s why you got downvoted to hell. Since you can’t be honest, I’m done here.
https://lemmy.world/comment/7226368
Yea totally didn't say that at all.
You didn’t. You said some bullshit about how many nodes there are.
Yea cause that's totally what my linked post says....but sure...you keep up that reading comprehension champ you'll get there one day.
Yeah, that’s why you got downvoted to shit… because it does not say what you’re claiming it does.
Lol ok reading comprehension is hard.
No. Life as you must be, though.