<story><title>Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-fintech-blockchain/wall-street-rethinks-blockchain-projects-as-euphoria-meets-reality-idUSKBN1H32GO</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hudon</author><text>I think the fundamental assumption is that &amp;quot;Satoshi invented a useful solution to decentralized consensus&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;What people don&amp;#x27;t realize is that Satoshi&amp;#x27;s solution only works if two assumptions hold true:&lt;p&gt;1. Mining is decentralized: If mining is centralized than relying on proof-of-work for consensus is waste since the centralized entity controls the blockchain anyway.&lt;p&gt;2. Consensus rules don&amp;#x27;t change: If you see the threat of #1 and so take power away from miners (like Bitcoin has done), then you cannot ever change the consensus ruleset because aside from proof-of-work, Satoshi did not give any solution to the problem of choosing between 2 chains that have slightly different consensus rules. If you change the consensus ruleset (ie. make any changes where 2 nodes disagree on if a block is valid or not), then you need an oracle to tell you which chain to choose. We&amp;#x27;ve seen this when Core developers chose the 0.7 Bitcoin chain in 2013 and when Vitalik chose the forked Ethereum chain in 2016.&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, the blockchain&amp;#x27;s decentralization is a myth because it relies on false assumptions. Satoshi invented a Rube Goldberg machine that is currently using as much electricity as a medium-sized country (and also enabling things like money laundering, drug trafficking, etc.).</text></item><item><author>nwah1</author><text>It is interesting that even in an article like this that they still say things like &amp;quot;for all its potential, blockchain is still in its early days.&amp;quot; It is sticking with the unfounded assumption that it will be a success in the future, if only it is given more time. In technological terms, it is old. Innumerable efforts have been attempted, yielding almost no fruit.&lt;p&gt;At what point are the fundamental assumptions going to be questioned?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>JumpCrisscross</author><text>&amp;gt; &lt;i&gt;Mining is decentralized&lt;/i&gt;&lt;p&gt;Cryptocurrency mining is as close as one can get to a theoretical free market in the real world. Free markets have known modes of failure [1]. One of these is where first-mover advantage and economies of scale combine to produce a barrier to entry; the result is oligopoly or monopoly.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Market_failure&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&amp;#x2F;wiki&amp;#x2F;Market_failure&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>Wall Street rethinks blockchain projects as euphoria meets reality</title><url>https://www.reuters.com/article/us-banks-fintech-blockchain/wall-street-rethinks-blockchain-projects-as-euphoria-meets-reality-idUSKBN1H32GO</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>hudon</author><text>I think the fundamental assumption is that &amp;quot;Satoshi invented a useful solution to decentralized consensus&amp;quot;.&lt;p&gt;What people don&amp;#x27;t realize is that Satoshi&amp;#x27;s solution only works if two assumptions hold true:&lt;p&gt;1. Mining is decentralized: If mining is centralized than relying on proof-of-work for consensus is waste since the centralized entity controls the blockchain anyway.&lt;p&gt;2. Consensus rules don&amp;#x27;t change: If you see the threat of #1 and so take power away from miners (like Bitcoin has done), then you cannot ever change the consensus ruleset because aside from proof-of-work, Satoshi did not give any solution to the problem of choosing between 2 chains that have slightly different consensus rules. If you change the consensus ruleset (ie. make any changes where 2 nodes disagree on if a block is valid or not), then you need an oracle to tell you which chain to choose. We&amp;#x27;ve seen this when Core developers chose the 0.7 Bitcoin chain in 2013 and when Vitalik chose the forked Ethereum chain in 2016.&lt;p&gt;At the end of the day, the blockchain&amp;#x27;s decentralization is a myth because it relies on false assumptions. Satoshi invented a Rube Goldberg machine that is currently using as much electricity as a medium-sized country (and also enabling things like money laundering, drug trafficking, etc.).</text></item><item><author>nwah1</author><text>It is interesting that even in an article like this that they still say things like &amp;quot;for all its potential, blockchain is still in its early days.&amp;quot; It is sticking with the unfounded assumption that it will be a success in the future, if only it is given more time. In technological terms, it is old. Innumerable efforts have been attempted, yielding almost no fruit.&lt;p&gt;At what point are the fundamental assumptions going to be questioned?</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>brightball</author><text>But one of the biggest selling points of Bitcoin itself was mathematically limited supply. A new cryptocurrency appearing every day fundamentally undermines the value proposition.&lt;p&gt;Blockchain may have value as a decentralized ledger in other areas, but “lots of blockchain based currencies” aren’t really one of them since it’s self-sabotaging.</text></comment>