I see this kind of comment on pretty much every thread about Blockchain, and yet those commenters aren’t ever able to share a use case where Blockchain solves a problem better than the existing technology. Maybe you have one though?
Immutable ledger for inter-branch bank transaction synchronization.
This is already in use at multiple financial institutions with significant value. It has increased the speed at which transactions can be verified and distributed across large networks of bank branches so that, for example, when you deposit your money at one bank branch it becomes available elsewhere on the network immediately without waiting for the end-of-day ledger reconciling. Previously, banks had to send just the transaction details and trust that it would be valid during reconciling (the “pending” status).
Want some more?
EDIT: Took the liberty of adding a bunch of examples to my original reply 👍
I don’t see how a blockchain is necessary there. Couldn’t they just use transaction databases and simple messaging between banks? Also, what is your definition of blockchain? Just a distributed linked list? Proof of work (the part I don’t understand the need for)?
It’s certainly not necessary, it just provides specific advantages in terms of tamper resistance, validation, etc. If you’re not working in a system where the integrity and authenticity is paramount and doing that validation over the wire constantly is prohibitive then there’s no significant benefit. But there are lots of scenarios where those are EXACTLY what you want to prioritize. Several of the examples I added to my initial reply offer clear use cases that benefit.
As for my definition, I’ll defer to the literal definition:
A blockchain is a decentralized, immutable digital ledger that records transactions chronologically in “blocks” linked together using cryptography. Each new block contains a hash of the previous one, forming a secure chain that is distributed across a peer-to-peer network of computers, making it tamper-evident and resistant to changes without network consensus. This distributed and transparent system eliminates the need for a central authority, allowing participants to verify and trust the recorded data.
Note that proof of work is NOT part of the definition. Proof of work is very specifically related to cryptocurrency, and exists only as a mechanism to prevent the arbitrary creation of additional currency (blocks). There is nothing about blockchain that requires proof of work. Often you use proof of stake instead of proof of work, but even that isn’t strictly necessary
P.s. this is exactly what I mean when I talk about how grifters have ruined a perfectly good technology by poisoning the public awareness of it. The fact that you considered proof of work to be a core element of blockchain is because of cryptocurrency, and the notoriety it has received because of the grift. Other examples of this phenomenon include Tesla and their impact on the perception of autonomous vehicles (which Teslas are not, but try very hard to make you think they are), and LLMs and “AI” and their impact on the perception of real AI projects and other forms of machine learning.
Sweet, genuinely thank you, my question came from a place of genuine curiosity and honest skepticism, so I appreciate the detail. I have a follow up question though. Most of those use cases seem like they’d require linking a specific identity to a given blockchain transaction. How does one go about doing that?
Blockchain itself is just, at its core, a method of cryptographically proving the authenticity of a ledger history. That’s it. What you DO with that technology is fairly boundless. You can embed anything in a block on the chain. We have lots of existing ways to handle proof of identity that can be inserted into a block (imagine if blocks contained the public key of block’s creator and then the entire block (including the public key) is signed with the private key)
Sure, you could do that, but all that would prove is that a block was signed with the private key associated with the included public key. That doesn’t necessarily say anything about someone’s identity though does it? It just says they know how to generate a public/private key pair and a digital signature. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your example?
I don’t mean to be rude but it sounds like you aren’t very familiar with digital identity management paradigms in the first place?
Proving who you are is always a relative operation. It’s always about the relationship between two things. “I am the person who generated this other message” or “I am the person whose face looks like this”.
Key/certificate issuance follows a variety of different models depending on the use case. Sometimes “this object was generated/signed by the person who controls this key” is enough, as is the case with things like secure emails (think gpg/pgp). Other times you need an authority to give relative meaning to a key/certificate (think SSL).
Yeah I’m definitely not a cryptography expert, but I’m more used to working with it in the “you need an authority to give relative meaning” use cases, not the “this signature came from that private key and that’s good enough” use cases. I feel like a lot of your examples rely on the “you need an authority to give relative meaning” use case though, and I can’t wrap my mind around a way to make that work in a way that that doesn’t largely negate the benefits you get from blockchain and it’s decentralization.
I see this kind of comment on pretty much every thread about Blockchain, and yet those commenters aren’t ever able to share a use case where Blockchain solves a problem better than the existing technology. Maybe you have one though?
Sure do! Quoting my other reply:
EDIT: Took the liberty of adding a bunch of examples to my original reply 👍
I don’t see how a blockchain is necessary there. Couldn’t they just use transaction databases and simple messaging between banks? Also, what is your definition of blockchain? Just a distributed linked list? Proof of work (the part I don’t understand the need for)?
It’s certainly not necessary, it just provides specific advantages in terms of tamper resistance, validation, etc. If you’re not working in a system where the integrity and authenticity is paramount and doing that validation over the wire constantly is prohibitive then there’s no significant benefit. But there are lots of scenarios where those are EXACTLY what you want to prioritize. Several of the examples I added to my initial reply offer clear use cases that benefit.
As for my definition, I’ll defer to the literal definition:
Note that proof of work is NOT part of the definition. Proof of work is very specifically related to cryptocurrency, and exists only as a mechanism to prevent the arbitrary creation of additional currency (blocks). There is nothing about blockchain that requires proof of work. Often you use proof of stake instead of proof of work, but even that isn’t strictly necessary
P.s. this is exactly what I mean when I talk about how grifters have ruined a perfectly good technology by poisoning the public awareness of it. The fact that you considered proof of work to be a core element of blockchain is because of cryptocurrency, and the notoriety it has received because of the grift. Other examples of this phenomenon include Tesla and their impact on the perception of autonomous vehicles (which Teslas are not, but try very hard to make you think they are), and LLMs and “AI” and their impact on the perception of real AI projects and other forms of machine learning.
Sweet, genuinely thank you, my question came from a place of genuine curiosity and honest skepticism, so I appreciate the detail. I have a follow up question though. Most of those use cases seem like they’d require linking a specific identity to a given blockchain transaction. How does one go about doing that?
Blockchain itself is just, at its core, a method of cryptographically proving the authenticity of a ledger history. That’s it. What you DO with that technology is fairly boundless. You can embed anything in a block on the chain. We have lots of existing ways to handle proof of identity that can be inserted into a block (imagine if blocks contained the public key of block’s creator and then the entire block (including the public key) is signed with the private key)
Sure, you could do that, but all that would prove is that a block was signed with the private key associated with the included public key. That doesn’t necessarily say anything about someone’s identity though does it? It just says they know how to generate a public/private key pair and a digital signature. Maybe I’m misunderstanding your example?
I don’t mean to be rude but it sounds like you aren’t very familiar with digital identity management paradigms in the first place?
Proving who you are is always a relative operation. It’s always about the relationship between two things. “I am the person who generated this other message” or “I am the person whose face looks like this”.
Key/certificate issuance follows a variety of different models depending on the use case. Sometimes “this object was generated/signed by the person who controls this key” is enough, as is the case with things like secure emails (think gpg/pgp). Other times you need an authority to give relative meaning to a key/certificate (think SSL).
Yeah I’m definitely not a cryptography expert, but I’m more used to working with it in the “you need an authority to give relative meaning” use cases, not the “this signature came from that private key and that’s good enough” use cases. I feel like a lot of your examples rely on the “you need an authority to give relative meaning” use case though, and I can’t wrap my mind around a way to make that work in a way that that doesn’t largely negate the benefits you get from blockchain and it’s decentralization.