• nothacking@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Blockchain is a great solution to a almost nonexistent problem. If you need a small, public, slow, append only, hard to tamper with database, then it is perfect. 99.9% of the time you want a database that is read-write, fast and private.

    • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      While applying it where most shitcoins have applied Blockchain, I agree it’s all hype. But Blockchain doesn’t solve a non-existent problem.

      Trusting humans is an inherent security flaw. Blockchain solves that problem. You don’t have to trust banks to not shortsell the housing market with your own money (causing a recession for the entire world) if you could cut humans out of the equation.

      Forget money. Say the data that you want to be able to transact and operate on is health data instead of financial information. You could create a decentralized identity system based on people’s biometric information. From there, you could automate and decentralize governance in general.

      Suggesting Blockchain solves a non-existent problem is like suggesting Lemmy solves a non-existent problem

      • MsPenguinette@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Why would health data be something you want decentralized?

        The only possible usecase I can think of for that is someone who has unique info that an emergency room would need. At that point, a medical alert bracelet would be the way to communicate that. Otherwise, I want to know exactly who has my medical information. That’s super sensitive info

        • ComradeKhoumrag@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Alright it’s early so I’m not structure this so much, but here’s my cypherpunk argument

          So, a decentralized ID system could be implemented by having a microchip implanted in the heart. The measured signals are more unique than your fingerprint, and if someone stole it, they’d have to kill you by ripping it out of your heart.

          But no one can trust a single company or government to make such a chip and not abuse that very rich health data which you can infer emotional states with. So instead a standard is developed so other people can develop the device independently.

          But decentralization goes beyond just manufacturing of the device itself, but also in governance of the data it collects. It doesn’t matter if your data is encrypted on the way to a single corporations servers, they still own the data.

          Furthermore, fully homomorphic encryption could be used to perform operations on encrypted data without ever decrypting it (unless you decrypt it with the keys from your microchip)

          So decentralization and FHE can remove the element of human trust from both monitoring health and establishing an identity system. While being transparent but also keeping your personal information hidden. For me, trusting humans is a security flaw. If that element of trust can be automated away, it should be.

          The problem has always been can you trust the people automating. With Blockchain, you can trust the servers are running the code that’s been agreed upon by the node operators and miners. With FHE, the data processed by the miners stays anonymous, and if you need to display that data say to a doctor, you have the ability to retrieve your encrypted data from a decentralized database (no one wants to manage their own data, like how most people don’t manage their own Lemmy instance)

          Anyone can splinter off and change the code, but if its incompatible they’re isolated on their own network. Kind of like if sublemmy instances content moderation policy is incompatible with others, they get defederated