pull down to refresh
94 sats \ 5 replies \ @nullcount 5 Nov 2023 \ on: a case for altcoins? bitcoin
You're describing a database. Simple. Permissioned. Efficient. Private (until they get leaked). Can be decentralized. But always requires a central authority with admin access that users must trust with the integrity of the database.
Blockchain is a datastructure that is similar to a database. A blockchain is not inherantly secure, distributed or permissionless. A blockchain only gets these properties when it is run on a network of distributed nodes, with a proof of work mechanism, and difficulty adjustment.
Its been 15 years since Bitcoin was discovered, and it appears that a blockchain is really only useful at proving ownership of and transferring value tokens (i.e. money).
Unlike previous hard monies like gold, Bitcoin is engineered to be money. So it is capable of having its monetary properties changed, either thru a fork or by using it with a Layer 2 protocol like LN.
And unlike previous soft monies (fiat), Bitcoin is not able to be changed by a privileged few. By running your own node, you are enforcing the rules of "your bitcoin". The only way the rules of your bitcoin change is if you choose run a node with different rules.
When you run a node with rules that conflict with the rules of someone else's node, you have created a new blockchain (fork) and your "value tokens" are incompatible with anyone running a different blockchain than you.
This means if you want to trade with someone who requires another token, you need to exchange your token for theirs in order to pay them. This incurs fees and creates opportunity for a middleman to facilitate the transaction (i.e. a bank -- which Bitcoin was supposed to make obsolete).
You are free to adjust the rules of your node however you like and recruit others to follow along. Just understand that when you fragment a network you drastically decrease its network effect.
i appreciate the clarifications, thank you. i'm familiar with metcalfe's law and not suggesting a deviation from the bitcoin network, but rather using side chains as a means to create smaller parallel networks for local use, dedicated to other tasks other than money management, as i disagree with the notion that "a blockchain is really only useful at proving ownership of and transferring value tokens" ... keeping a rolling database on a distributed blockchain could hypothetically provide an unprecedented form of self-governance, such as for smaller towns and rural communities.
perhaps what i'm describing now is a customizable DAO framework which could be adopted by a community (with everyone running a node for validation) and implemented by trustworthy member of that community - this is where trust would be required on a more personal level to mitigate abuse (e.g. running for mayor in a small town) so it requires trust to implement, and once running, trustless (as every node would be validating all data passing through) ... and this data could vary depending on the case use, but i'm thinking specifically for small town governance, requiring transparency on all things bureaucratic, sheriff/police action, civil complaints filed, etc. (as it's incredible how often corruption happens at the local level) ... i have to imagine that people have an interest in solving these problems as well. if even 1% of the population gets a decent grasp on reading the code, it would make it far more difficult for power to be abused.
i probably posted this wild musing in the wrong place. but thank you @nullcount for the response :)
reply
There were lots of DAOs created in the last hype cycle. Many DAOs are decentralized in name only because they weren't designed to eliminate the Principal Agent Problem. Thus they are ultimately governed by some level of trust and at that point, just use a database.
The oracle problem is also something to consider. A blockchain can only verify its own state. The moment you try to anchor blockchains to real world events, you require an oracle that introduces additional trust.
Look into eCash, Cashu, and Federated eCash on BTC. It has potential to facilitate DAOs
reply
i'll check those out, thanks!
reply
A good read on the subject I just found
reply
whoa yeah this is a good read ... at the very end there's a quote that sums up i think what i was going for (they put it far more eloquently): "... with the necessary infrastructure in place, a self-sovereign system could spawn digitally native capital markets at scale and could contribute to entrenching Bitcoin as a standard unit of account."
a lot to chew on here ... very good find, thanks!
reply