Author [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] [EN] [ZH] [ES] [PT] [IT] [DE] [FR] [NL] [TR] [SR] [AR] [RU] Topic: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?  (Read 510 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline luckybit

https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline speedy

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1160
    • View Profile
  • BTS: speedy
Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #1 on: April 15, 2015, 11:18:12 AM »
Here's my take on it:

If you want a blockchain to store value in a trustless manner, then tokens of value must be intrinsic to that blockchain. Without tokens of value you could still transmit value by trading IOUs etc, but that of course wouldn't be trustless.

Token-less blockchains (i.e. append-only databases) seem to be niche, i.e. big companies are researching how then can use them for their own specialized needs. Therefore they're not really competing with Bitcoin itself which is why I don't see the need for all the tension.

You can take advantage of the redundancy properties of blockchains for interesting things like a distributed github for example. But maybe you still need an underlying token to charge users to not spam the network. I dont know, thats why I hope people try new things and innovate instead of just spreading FUD against trying new things with blockchains.

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #2 on: April 15, 2015, 04:09:27 PM »

On some levels it is going the same direction as BitShares.  That is the managed miners direction instead of the weird Bitcoin system where no one particularly wins.  Miners lose/break even on $$.  Value holders get hit from the inflation and in the end the blockchain isn't that secure from an attack.  (Go find the mining pool ops and it could break, at least temporarily.)

I am curious how a centralized entity can actually seriously secure a blockchain.  Do they have x computers doing POW?  So they just need x *2 servers in standby somewhere.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline luckybit

Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #3 on: April 15, 2015, 04:44:23 PM »
Centralized blockchains would be secured by governments. So for example a nationalist chain might want to do it centralized but then why would they bother with a blockchain at all?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline jsidhu

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1337
    • View Profile
Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #4 on: April 15, 2015, 05:11:38 PM »
You need to incentivize securing the network.. which is what the coin is used for. A central entity authorizing breaks the consensus model, goes against why it was created and yea no point in even having the chain even if you force people to use it, they will hate it and look for alternatives.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 05:13:48 PM by jsidhu »
Hired by blockchain | Developer
delegate: dev.sidhujag

Offline gamey

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2253
    • View Profile
Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #5 on: April 15, 2015, 08:55:11 PM »
It is a quasi-solution to a different set of problems. A blockchain could help prove nothing changed.  It will just require a higher level of trust of a central authority. 

I am not sure where thsee things will be used.
I speak for myself and only myself.

Offline fuzzy

Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #6 on: April 15, 2015, 09:16:07 PM »
Centralized blockchains would be secured by governments. So for example a nationalist chain might want to do it centralized but then why would they bother with a blockchain at all?

They would bother with the blockchain because forcing people to use the blockchain would enable all that sweet meta data they are unlawfully collecting to be tied to transactions.  And poof! Ultimate surveillance!

As far as mining. I doubt many govs will be mining...it will likely be a something like bitshares because it so similarly mirrors the redundancy models currently used.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2015, 09:40:09 PM by fuzzy »
WhaleShares==DKP; BitShares is our Community! 
ShareBits and WhaleShares = Love :D

Offline davidpbrown

Re: Coinless blockchains, brilliant or evil?
« Reply #7 on: April 15, 2015, 10:41:14 PM »
A blockchain could help prove nothing changed.

That's exactly what the proof-of-realworld-asset class of activity will need, coupled with and authority mandating that blockchain is the one that represents the ownership of a class of product. So, any link to real world asset could benefit from this.. except that it's centralised but then any such link into the real world ownership of assets will necessarily need some authority confirming its legality - or accepting the liability for the perception of it. I think it's rather a novel solution but does suggest then a practical risk to other ideas about issuing stocks and bonds, as they could be done without added value held in the digital token that proves ownership. So, it might be cheaper to have a blockchain like suggested.. just a case of making it work - so that it is accessible to users, which is of course part of the strength of decentralised solutions.

What it does not affect are digital currencies that are money or pegged tokens like BitShares assets.
฿://1CBxm54Ah5hiYxiUtD7JGYRXykT5Z6ZuMc

 

Google+