Block chain, but a bright future is imagined? Instead, it also stole human trust?

Blockchain is just a bad technique, and it has no future at all. Blockchain technology has not been adopted on a large scale, mainly because systems built on trust, norms, and regulatory agencies operate better than the untrusted systems of the blockchain vision. The blockchain took the wrong direction at the beginning, so no matter how advanced it is, it can't change the wrong facts.

In December of last year, I wrote an article about the blockchain that could not solve practical problems and received wide attention. Most people do not stay in the technical debate, but emphasize that decentralization can bring integrity.

Venmo offers a free remittance service, but it is not free for Bitcoin. Last December, after I wrote an article saying that Bitcoin had no practical use, some people stood up and said that Venmo and Paypal are using the user's money to collect money, so people should use Bitcoin instead.

It can be seen that there is a huge gap between the uselessness of the blockchain and its followers! In fact, this person is not a fanatic follower of Bitcoin, he just wants to find a convenient and free way to send money, and Bitcoin just met his needs. I am sure that in reality, no one will think that blockchain is the only way to solve their problems, and thus become a fanatic follower of the blockchain.

Retailers using digital currency as a means of payment have become less and less, and most of the blockchain's biggest drivers (such as IBM, NASDAQ, Fidelity, Swift, and Wal-Mart) are just saying nothing. Even the well-known blockchain company Ripple has not used blockchain technology on its own products. Ripple believes that the best way to make international remittances is to not use Ripple.

Why is the enthusiasm for certain things not useful in practice?

People "think" about the future of a blockchain, such as applying blockchain to AI like Google or Facebook. The reason for these delusions is that people have misunderstood the blockchain. A blockchain is nothing more than a data structure, a linear transaction log that is usually generated by the owner of a compute node (also known as a miner) who is rewarded for recording transactions.

There are two points in this data structure that are worth mentioning. First, modify any one block, the block will lead to subsequent failure, that is to say, we can not distort history transaction. Second, we are only likely to be rewarded if we are on the same chain as others, so each participant tends to reach a consensus.

In the movie "Golden Compass", the dust is filled and all things are formed through consciousness, but the blockchain is not like this.

We will eventually get an authoritative history. Moreover, because the formation of consensus is based on the interests of everyone, if someone joins a false transaction, it will result in no reward for everyone. In this way, compliance with the rules becomes subtle and does not require the involvement of the government or the police. This is a very great idea.

In short, blockchain is such a technique: "Let's create a long list of small files, each containing the hash value of the previous file, some new data, and the answer to the algorithm, if Someone is willing to verify and save these files on their computers and reward them with some money."

The metaphor about blockchain is described as follows: Everyone keeps their records in a tamper-proof warehouse that doesn't belong to anyone.

In 2006, Wal-Mart launched a system to track the process of bananas and mangoes from origin to store. In 2009, they deactivated the system because it required everyone to enter data into the system, and the experience was not very good. In 2017, Wal-Mart restarted the system based on blockchain technology. If someone tells you that “the farmer doesn’t like to enter data”, how would you answer him? You might say, “I know, let’s create a long list of small files, each containing the last file. Hash value". If you say this, they may be confused, but if you say, "Let them keep records in a tamper-proof warehouse that doesn't belong to anyone," they may be easier to understand.

People regard the blockchain as "a fertile ground for integrity in the future." As long as you use blockchain to solve your problems, your data will become legitimate in an instant. People want to make things legitimate, as long as they use blockchain technology.

It is really difficult to tamper with the blockchain data, but the blockchain is not the most efficient way to create legitimate legitimate data.

To illustrate this problem, let's talk about the theory first. Let's take the example of a blockchain application scenario that everyone is familiar with – buying e-books through “smart” contracts. The function of the blockchain here is "trust": you don't trust e-book providers, they don't trust you (because you are nothing but individuals on the Internet), but they trust in the block. Trading on the chain.

In a traditional scenario it might be like this: You paid for it and waited for the goods to be received, but the merchant did not ship after receiving the money. The only thing you can rely on is Visa, Amazon or the government to help them solve this type of problem. In contrast, in the blockchain system, transactions are performed by adding records to a tamper-proof warehouse that does not belong to anyone. Whether it is remittance or purchase of digital products, it is directly carried out, no intermediary arbitration is required, and no one can Steal the benefits from it. Isn't this better than the traditional way?

Maybe you know the software very well. When the writer shows you the smart contract, you spend an hour or two to make sure that the contract will only take away the equivalent of the fair e-book price, and then you will receive the e-book. Not a bunch of files.

But software auditing is hard to be perfect! Even the most rigorous smart contracts can have bugs that people usually don't notice, and when they notice, thieves have used it to steal $50 million. Funds built by the enthusiasts of digital currency to invest $150 million can't guarantee a foolproof audit. Why do you trust your e-book audit so confidently? Perhaps you should develop your own buyer software contract. In case the e-book author hides the back door in their contract, then use it to steal your life savings from your Ethereum wallet?

The process of buying e-books is very complicated! There is no lack of trust, but you choose to trust software, not people.

Another example: the application of blockchains in voting systems in weakly regulated countries. “It seems right to put your voting records in a tamper-proof warehouse that doesn’t belong to anyone.” The question is, do voters need to download blocks from the broadcast node and crack them through the Linux command line. Can the Merkel password know if their votes have been counted, or do they need to use the third-party trust agency responsible for supervising the voting to know the actual situation of the vote?

"I want to look at the source code of the system to make sure that this person does not vote repeatedly."

These sound silly, e-book authors and voters use electronic "security" to protect themselves, but unscrupulous users or third-party trust agencies use smart contracts to steal your deposits or tamper with votes. In the blockchain world, because there is no trust and regulation, individuals need to be responsible for their own security. And if the software they use has a bug, or is attacked by a Trojan, the consequences are even more serious!

Perhaps everyone has become accustomed to it, blockchain systems are always considered to be more trustworthy, but in fact they are the least trustworthy system in the world. In less than a decade, three of the top bitcoin trading platforms were hacked, and another was sued for insider trading. The model smart contract project DAO came to an end, and the price of digital currency was high and vacillating. Bitcoin is backed by billions of dollars in fake transactions.

The blockchain system does not guarantee that the data entered by people must be credible. It can only guarantee that the data in it will not be tampered with. A fruit farmer sprayed pesticides on mangoes, but he can still record in the blockchain system that his mangoes are completely organic. A corrupt government can create a blockchain system for statistical ballots and secretly enter millions of votes for its cronies. A digitally licensed investment fund may still mismatch funds.

So where does trust come from?

In the case of purchasing e-books, even if you use smart contracts, if you don't audit the software, you can only rely on the following four "traditional" trust mechanisms: you know who the author of the smart contract is and think that the other person is trustworthy; Book retailers have a good reputation; you or your friends have successfully purchased e-books from this retailer in the past; you hope that this retailer will be honest and trustworthy. For the four cases above, even if you use smart contracts in your trades, you still need to rely on the credibility of the middleman or seller. Smart contracts still work, but their transparency has become lower, not higher.

The ballot statistics are the same. Before the blockchain emerges, we can only believe that the voting management office will handle the ballots fairly. I believe that only legitimate voters have participated in the voting. I believe that the ballot papers are anonymous and cannot be obtained through coercion. I believe that the ballot paper displayed on the announcement system is Really, I believe that political cronies will not receive extra votes. The blockchain does not make these problems easier to solve. Instead, it only adds to the difficulty. More importantly, however, solving these problems through the blockchain requires some means that undermine the core promise of voting. In fact, looking at any blockchain solution, we inevitably find that they all build trust entities in a world of lack of trust through some means.

Original digital currency system

Without the “traditional” factor and relying entirely on the self-interest and self-protection mechanisms of the blockchain to create real-world systems, you are most likely to fall into the quagmire.

More than 800 years ago in Europe, the government was weak and incompetent, and thieves were rampant. The safe banking system only existed in the ideal, and the personal safety was suspended on the sword front. Somalia is now like this, and trading on the blockchain is similar.

I believe no one will want our world to become Somalia!

Even the death loyalty of digital currency will not fully trust their own systems. 93% of Bitcoin was dug up by regulated groups, but these groups did not use smart contracts to manage spending.

“Silk Road” is an online drug market driven by digital currency. The key to this website is not Bitcoin (used to circumvent government regulation), but a “reputation value”. The higher the reputation value, the more trustworthy the drug dealer is. But this reputation value is not tracked through a blockchain system that can be tamper-proof, but manipulated by a middleman!

If Ripple, the Silk Road, Slush Pool, and DAO all rely on “traditional” systems to build trust, it means that there is no real trust system in our world!

It’s time to abandon the blockchain.

Using a decentralized tamper-proof warehouse to track the mango's origin, freshness, and use of pesticides seems like that. But in fact, food safety laws, non-profit organizations or government inspectors, independent news media, authorized whistleblowers, reputable food stores, and local farm markets are doing better in this regard. People who really care about food safety don't use blockchain because they think trust is better than no trust. Blockchain technology has exposed its drawbacks. There is no necessary connection between saving data into a long series of small files and whether the farmers are honestly reporting whether the mango is using pesticides. Similarly, the lack of supervision, normative constraints, middlemen, or trusted entities for peer-to-peer interactions is a very bad way of authorizing.

Trusted projects fail because they don't give users real benefits. Trust is really important! In a world without law and trust, self-interest is the only remaining principle. Security only exists in delusions. Such a world is definitely not a paradise, but a land of filth.

510 Battery

Suizhou simi intelligent technology development co., LTD , https://www.msmvape.com