I completely agree with this assessment – the Blockchain approach, particularly the proof of work consensus model, makes sense in far fewer cases than people claim. But where it does, there is currently no alternative.
Clemens Vasters 🇪🇺📨🇮🇱🇺🇦 @clemensv
20 Apr 2018
Replying to @clemensv
The specific combination of well-understood architectural building blocks that make up "blockchain" is very well applicable, but nearly exclusively applicable to all-around trustless global ledger accounting problem (e.g. "coins").
3
5
1
12
In other words, I both agree and disagree with the sentiments expressed in that thread (which you should read): I think once we’ve accepted that centralizable use cases aren’t a good fit, it’s somewhat pointless to criticize BC for the decentralized aspects
1
1
It would still be legit point out that if consensus on who gets to write a block requires 30 “Exahash” calculations per second for 10 minutes, it’s not clear that we have a general-purpose solution for the trustless case here.
1
1
1
Replying to @clemensv
It’s a very expensive, very slow solution and therefore not generally applicable, I agree. I’d love to see an alternative. But it’s deployed, battle-hardened, and works. No other trustless solution can claim the same AFAICT

Apr 25, 2018 · 5:41 AM UTC

1
1