that is where you are wrong, go watch the SEC discuss using blockchain and DLT for decentralized databases for food and identities.
>Would be better to store them on your own machine and let the host only have its checksum. Still less hassle-free than a full blockchain.
no it wouldn't because then your computer is vulnerable. A databse is only as strong as its weakest part. This is why we use things like hardware wallets.
>Some countries have ISP-wide "registries of forbidden websites" and replace SSL certificates
this could be potentially avoided using web 3.0 dumbass.
None of your arguments are valid and you actually provided a use case in your third scenario.
Michael Cook
anyone in this thread arguing against blockchain is just strawmanning retarded points and doesn't actually understand why things like DLT or bitcoin is useful. Go educate yourselves before entering this space or you will lose all your money investing into a scam. I'm saying this for your own good.
Kevin Ross
Kek, leave biz
Christian Nguyen
>everyone is a beautiful, enlightened being >game theorists are paranoid >power dynamics are a lie >let's trust everyone
Carson Barnes
Is wikipedia decentralized though? Decentralization is not useful when there's no huge need to be as trustless as possible. We trust wikipedia enough not to lie to us too much, but when it comes to money or legal data trustlessness becomes useful.
>Ok I'll continue, why does that need to be decentralized? Why would it be useful to store legal data tamper-free digitally without relying on a third party? Are you asking?
>Current encryption technology can alert you when something has been tampered with That's called hashing, brainlet. You store the hashes on a distributed ledger.
Blake Taylor
>he doesn't know game theory
Gabriel Nelson
Explain yourself or never post here again. Do you know a single thing about game theory? Have you ever solved a probability matrix?
Carter Hill
>that is where you are wrong I am not wrong, DYR. There are lots of decentralized database architectures, they don't necessarily have anything to do with blockchain.
>no it wouldn't because then your computer is vulnerable. It's still true even if you're data is stored externally.
>This is why we use things like hardware wallets. Valid, but its principles might be put to a good use without blockchain itself.
>go watch the SEC discuss using blockchain and DLT for decentralized databases for food and identities. They keep an open mind "just in case". I see no problem with that.
>this could be potentially avoided using web 3.0 dumbass. This can be potentially avoided by using a VPN. My point was that the tech never stopped oppressive governments. Let alone that web 3.0 doesn't have anything to do with blockchain, so its mention is irrelevant.
Tyler Wright
>without relying on a third party? You think relying on 10000s of 3rd parties is going to be cheaper than relying on 1 when the same type of verification method exists? The resources to run those nodes are going to need to come from somewhere, unless you can convince every law office in the country to have their own dedicated blockchain server vs. paying a pittance from a centralized source. I'd like to see the logistics around that.
Ian Reed
Dumb brainlet says a definite statement that they do not. They are obviously trying it. Fuck off retard.
