Hacker News Reader

Comment by chucke | Hacker News Reader

> you can’t have a corrupt official ask for a cash payment to “expedite” your passport / visa application if it’s fast to begin with

And yet this happens. Theoretically the blockchain reduces the entry barrier more, while not compromising on compliance and security guarantees.

You're spot on that countries would have to agree, and different blocks could form. It's no different than trade and visa agreements. The blockchain doesn't solve the problem IMO,it just reduces the cost. Trust in institutions will never be replaced by the blockchain.

View on HN

I’m not convinced that blockchains would actually reduce the cost or provide any benefit over a federated system where each nation (or group of nations like the EU) controls the data of its own citizens. I run into this problem with nearly every potential blockchain application I hear: it’s usually faster / cheaper / less disruptive to use a centralized or federated system governed by legal agreements that are hashed out in negotiations.

Politics underpins all of it — a lot of blockchain advocates look at blockchain as a way to sidestep political squabbles, when really the politics exist at a lower level of the stack upon which blockchain governance rules are built. A nation could unilaterally cease participation in any blockchain at any time, and use political pressure in other areas (trade, defense, etc) to get other nations to join them.

Blockchains can, and most likely will, be federated. Legal agreements can be managed via such a system. Bear in mind that the blockchain does not solve politics, and all the problems you mention are a problem of the currently most common implementation of a blockchain, which is cryptocurrencies.

But like, why? Sure, blockchain can do a lot of things, but it’s not clear that it’s better than an API for the vast majority of applications while being worse in a number of ways. You can put similar governance rules on an API without the complexity. The flexibility inherent in human interpretation of legal agreements is a key feature of a common law system like we have in the US.

To echo the author’s thesis, we’re no longer in the early days of blockchain. We’re over a decade in and nobody has gained traction with a use case that isn’t purely speculative. That in and of itself should say something.

Blockhains can be as simple as an API. See the 7 layer stack in the Nexus blockchain (you definitely don't need to go smart contract all the time).

I think the author exaggerates a bit the tone. Sure, 10 years is a lot of Internet time. But the steam engine took 50 years to become viable. Then the industrial revolution was a period of 80 years. Put that into perspective.

I guess, by speculative, you mean the cryptocurrency craze.and I can agree is a speculative bubble, an MLM scheme. But then you also have https://cyber.ee/resources/news/digital-identity-and-blockch... . You'll soon have CDBCs. And when it's here, you'll barely remember what this conversation.

Your bitcoin might be worthless by then.

I’ve done some work in the supply chain space around blockchain; the problem is that in many industries there is already an oligopoly of 2 or 3 companies that control things. They have no incentive to give up any amount of control; instead preferring to lock their customers in to their products and platforms. Governments are the same in an international sense.

The technical problems are solvable. The political ones are not.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com