Most Johnly of HenriesApr 7, 2017
It's still sort of crazy to me that these obvious flaws in blockchains' core principles and governing entities exist, but smart people keep investing in them anyway. I guess they truly lack any sort of faith in regular governments. There's a need for "digital government journalists", who are neither embedded in old-world politics (like EFF & others) nor untrustworthy orgs who are biased by positions they hold with cryptocurrencies (like Coindesk, or other "bitcoin news").
Show threadMMN-o ✅⃠Apr 7, 2017
@johnhenry While I'm sure you're right, I'd like to hera what you consider an obvious flaw. In my perspective there are tons and tons of flaws, but none of them are very obvious considering the wide variety of usecases a blockchain can have.

For some scenarios blockchains are totally pointless, for some dangerous, for some just perfect. But if there's some all-encompassing superflaw that I don't know about, I'd love to hear about it.
Show threadpettter ✅Apr 7, 2017
@mmn For me, the biggest (and thus far unmitigated) is the accumulative nature of the security mechanism (proof-of-work and proof-of-stake).

I.e. if you have resources, PoW/PoS will get you more.
Show threadRysiekúr (old account)
@pettter @mmn +1. Blockchain kinda solved the escrow and source of truth in decentralized systems issue, which is amazing. But we need to find a way to make it not lend itself to economies of scale, as this breeds centralization.
Apr 7, 2017 at 9:28amWeb
Show threadpettter ✅Apr 7, 2017
@rysiek @mmn Well, the easy way is limit participation to trusted participants, and just use the blockchain mechanisms to solve the consensus issue or (as the case may be) highlight conflicting assertions.