• Zron@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    42
    ·
    10 months ago

    How does adding more computers, more points of failure, make infrastructure less prone to exploitation?

    • Pennomi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      10 months ago

      Because it’s a trustless system. In order to override the system you have to take over 50% of the nodes, and in large enough systems it’s infeasible to get that much compute power. This means that no one person or organization can actually control the destiny of the system, only the consensus can.

      I can’t believe that here, in the fediverse of all places, we need to have a discussion about the benefits of having a system that corporations can’t control.

      • Johanno@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        30
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ok explain to me the advantages of a decentralized traffic light system that controls public traffic on public streets?

        What advantages does a blockchain traffic light system have over a centralized server controlled by those who are responsible for maintaining the physical hardware?

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          10 months ago

          Nah that one makes perfect sense to be centralized. I’m saying in general you’d want a system to be decentralized if you want it trustless.

      • Zron@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        10 months ago

        Who controls the streetlight blockchain in your idea? You think the government is going to responsibly manage a system that is large enough to be impractical to alter? My local government is barely responsibly enough to manage basic utility maintenance, we’ve had 3 water main bursts in a month and it hasn’t even been below freezing that whole time.

        I can’t believe a human being living in the world doesn’t see that any implementation of a secure blockchain requires massive funding for infrastructure. That money comes from 1 of 2 places, illegal enterprises that maintain control for security and manipulation, and legal corporations that will maintain control for financial security and manipulation. Modern governments don’t run projects like this anymore, they contract them out to corporations.

        Keep in mind that the only practical use of blockchain that anyone has found so far, has been as a currency that requires no ID. The most famous use of these currencies was by John Mccaffee, who used crypto currencies to help him evade authorities for nearly a decade. So I don’t have much faith in a technology that has only shown a benefit to criminals with so much money that cash becomes impractical. Nor do I have to remind you that wealthy private individuals have been able to manipulate crypto markets with hilarious ease, like how Musk pumped and dumped Doge Coin years ago with a single tweet and most likely made millions in private, untraceable money.

        Just because something sounds cool on paper, and makes it seem like it skirts governments and corporations, doesn’t mean it works in practice. Large entities inherently have more resources, and are primed to steal new technologies for their own use, especially when implementing that technology requires huge funding for infrastructure.

        • Pennomi@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Yeah I realize now I responded to a thread about traffic lights instead of systems in general. Obviously centralized systems are far superior for that.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        It’s almost like different types of systems have different requirements, and a communication platform benefits from decentralization, where traffic lights and vehicle routing does not.