Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens)

James Mickens gave an entertaining presentation about why blockchain is poorly suited for most application use cases: ▶ this video

Web3 requires retrofitting the web to use blockchain technologies to do what the web can mostly do already. In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin: See his presentation here: ▶ this video 1. People have out-of-band trust relationships in real life which reduce the likelihood of malice. Bitcoin-style anonymous identities undermine trust relationships and are not needed for legitimate (not illegal) transactions. 2. Real life legal systems encourage good behaviors. If you have a dispute with someone, you can sue them. Bitcoin and related systems lack these protections. 3. Existing tools such as public-key cryptography and digital signatures can provide most of the functionality that applications need without the problems that blockchain-based systems have.

Web3 requires retrofitting the web to use blockchain technologies to do what the web can mostly do already. In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin: See his presentation here: ▶ this video 1. People have out-of-band trust relationships in real life which reduce the likelihood of malice. Bitcoin-style anonymous identities undermine trust relationships and are not needed for legitimate (not illegal) transactions. 2. Real life legal systems encourage good behaviors. If you have a dispute with someone, you can sue them. Bitcoin and related systems lack these protections. 3. Existing tools such as public-key cryptography and digital signatures can provide most of the functionality that applications need without the problems that blockchain-based systems have.

Exactly. Making money on blockchain requires retrofitting the web to use blockchain to do what the web can mostly do already. In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin: See his presentation here: ▶ this video 1. People have out-of-band trust relationships in real life which reduce the likelihood of malice. Bitcoin-style anonymous identities undermine trust relationships and are not needed for legitimate (not illegal) transactions. 2. Real life legal systems encourage good behaviors. If you have a dispute with someone, you can sue them. Bitcoin and related systems lack these protections. 3. Existing tools such as public-key cryptography and digital signatures can provide most of the functionality that applications need without the problems that blockchain-based systems have.

James Mickens' "Blockchains are a bad idea" talk [1] is a great explanation that discusses exactly that. [1]: ▶ this video

In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin: See his presentation here: ▶ this video 1. People have out-of-band trust relationships in real life which reduce the likelihood of malice. Bitcoin-style anonymous identities undermine trust relationships and are not needed for legitimate (not illegal) transactions. 2. Real life legal systems encourage good behaviors. If you have a dispute with someone, you can sue them. Bitcoin and related systems lack these protections. 3. Existing tools such as public-key cryptography and digital signatures can provide most of the functionality that applications need without the problems that blockchain-based systems have.

I concur with your point, considering we already have methods like hashing to create rather unique signatures, and with frameworks and regulations(laws). I'm going to vaguely quote James Mickens here, but you can basically sue someone if there is an issue. If there is an issue on the block chain? You need to fork it. Oh, and the talk for anyone who's interested considering he conveys a few interesting points I've seen throughout this thread. ▶ this video

I trust my bank and the legal framework more than wallet software and a loose band of SWEs running a blockchain or DLT. If funds are wired to the wrong person in your jurisdiction, you can sue to recover it if the sending and receiving institutions can't claw it back. With crypto, you're SOL. Technology doesn't fix trust and legal issues, and a judge is going to laugh an immutable ledger out of a courtroom (or hold you in contempt). ▶ this video [HBR: Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens)]

:D I also got so annoyed that I started curating blogs and videos (as myth-busters) to help me bring the point across in discussions. My experience with this is sadly that changing anyone's mind who has already made it up is _really_ hard. Here is my list: Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens) ▶ this video Hacking Blockchain (Konstantinos Karagiannis, Chief Technology Officer, Security Consulting, BT) link Myth Busting: Can a blockchain save healthcare? link Blockchain Graveyard link Response to Blockchain & Blockcerts Critiques from Privacy Researcher link Blockcerts: Using blokchain for identity management is (mostly) ridiculous link Blockchains from a Distributed Computing Perspective link Do you need a Blockchain? link IOTA Tweets from cybergibbons: link

Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens) ▶ this video I find almost all from GOTO 2018 very insightful. link esp ones listed below. GOTO 2018 • The Do's and Don'ts of Error Handling • Joe Armstrong link GOTO 2018 • Pragmatic Event-Driven Microservices • Allard Buijze link GOTO 2018 • Why Business Cases are Toxic • Chris Matts link GOTO 2018 • Unconditional Code • Michael Feathers link

Notarizing documents is a great example where some people think blockchain is a good use case, and it's never true. Where would be the advantage of the scheme you describe to the current system? There is none. The system already works: people are given power to validate documents by the authority. The authority stores that centrally. The validation is mostly collected centrally. All stuff you can do perfectly fine without needing to run replicated servers storing an evergrowing immutable blockchain sipping authority from the real authority. The current scheme allows things like secret notarization and revocation, stuff a blockchain is very bad at. > it'll be up to the receiving agencies like England's government to decide "We trust the system the US uses to validate it's notiaries, so we'll add 'USRoxs' to our list of accepted Established Authorities (along with 'TheEnglish' of course)" Countries already have systems in place to accept documents made in other countries. Works with official translators and stamps/seals of authenticity. In better and funny: Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens), ▶ this video

Can only hide from fundamental issues for so long I suppose... Here's a compelling and fun to watch lecture that James Mickens (Harvard SEAS) recently gave about the problems with Blockchain - ▶ this video

James Mickens has a pretty good breakdown of why blockchain isn't a good solution for most real-world problems: ▶ this video