• Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    14 hours ago

    They are still very unstable and rely on some sort of consensus. It is flat out a bad design. It would be safer to pay with stocks.

    • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      13 hours ago

      consensus is basically what all modern databases rely on… it’s not unstable; it has properties that need to be well known and accounted for

      • Possibly linux@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        13 hours ago

        The problem is using that for something world wide with no backing by anything material.

        It is unstable my nature

        • Pup Biru@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          11 hours ago

          i tend to agree for mass-adopted currency, but mass currency is only 1 use case for blockchain

          things like bank to bank transfers (think a replacement to swift: with semi trusted entities like a big group of banks, the proof functions can be both extremely efficient and fast whilst remaining scalable and distributed so nobody has control… of course this would be a private network, but every bank involved can audit and sign off on transactions)

          blockchain at its core is an immutable log between untrusted parties… it can be used to prove a particular thing happened at a particular point, in situations where people don’t even trust governments etc to maintain accurate records

          it’s too big and cumbersome to be used by everyone in the world for payment, but it’s a good facilitator of some niche things that most people won’t have any idea about

          the technology is solid; it’s just very limited, and the most “profitable” and marketable uses are also the most ill-suited