Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens)

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

James Mickens has a pretty good breakdown of why blockchain isn't a good solution for most real-world problems: [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 - [VIDEO]

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), [VIDEO]

Blockchains Are a Bad Idea (James Mickens) [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]

: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) [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]

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. [VIDEO]

In "Blockchains Are a Bad Idea", James Mickens gives several arguments against blockchain-based systems like Bitcoin: See his presentation here: [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.