Oh that? It was bullshit just like AI.
this post was submitted on 31 Jul 2025
128 points (100.0% liked)
No Stupid Questions
42629 readers
459 users here now
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Money got involved and fucked everything up.
As usual.
Its in the cloud
Nothing because it was all bullshit because the underlying technology is just fundamentally flawed.
This isn't news, lots of people always saw this when Bitcoin came out, but tech bro's kept pushing it right until AI came out, then the completely forgot it ever existed
It's being used for what it's very good at. That means very little applications (although there are some), on a different scale, and certainly nothing that can promise a quick buck for free. Basically, empty promises just farted out.
Most of the real world usage were bogus, either because they did not actually work as advertised, or because they had lots of negative properties for businesses (imagine a system that would try to prevent fraud if done well… nobody wants that). There's also the issue that a lot of "funky, interesting stuff", once you filtered out the bad and the ugly, were just… less efficient, less useful versions of what we already used to do.
There are still people clinging to it (and the recent fuckery in the US might revive that… although for all the bad reasons), but the press moved forward to the next thing.
Out of those I only know blockchain being used in spain as a way to ensure legality of accounting books, and that business are not commiting fraud by deleting invoices. Not in a public ledger or anything, just a hashed chain that they need to send to irs equivalent.
They were desperately waiting for you to figure those enough promises and now that AI has dominated the narrative, they've either skunk off to try and get in on that, or finally just cut their losses and tried to rebuild their ruined lives.
AI has taken the spotlight, but this is a good thing.
It's still out there and going amazing!!! Despite the lack of mainstream media coverage, blockchain and smart contacts couldn't be doing better.
On an unrelated topic, does anyone want to buy some NFTs? I can give you a really good deal. No take-backs, though.
Blockchain is just a ledger. Most systems don't need a ledger, they need a database. It was a solution looking for a problem in most cases and the marketing/business types don't listen to the engineers if the engineers are even in the room.
it does still hold value, but the value is super niche and generally shouldn’t be exposed to the user… it’s an implementation detail
If I understood it correctly, the main problem it can solve is lack of trust. If the involved parties can't find a single authority to trust, they can use a blockchain instead.
Finding cases like that is a bit tricky. For example, you trust your ISP, your bank, maybe even your government... to some extent.... They're not your best friend, nor do they have to be. You can still trust them enough to take care of certain jobs. You pay your ISP via bank transfer, and they provide the service you signed up for. As long as there's just enough trust, the system still works and there's no need to use a blockchain.
Same goes for banks. Most people trust that the bank isn't going to run away with your money. As long as that trust exists, there's no need to use a blockchain.
that’s absolutely the main thing yup… in almost every circumstance where people implement blockchain, a trusted entity is involved so there’s no point to the blockchain
almost always there’s a single entity issuing a thing, and then that same entity also consuming that thing
we are absolutely right now in the trough of disillusionment with blockchain (well, among people who actually understand anything at all - as usual let’s not count trump and his base as rational actors), and at some point there will be useful solutions remain
(and side note too, we’re in the peak of inflated expectations with AI… i can not wait for that crash and to be left only with useful things)
When it comes to AI, I'm seeing a variety of different hype levels. As far as consumer products are concerned, it's mostly just hype and vapor—a solution looking for a problem. However, on the B2B side, it can be a lot more grounded. Recently, I've been talking a a few AI companies, and they aren't promising completely absurd things. Most of them know exactly how hard it can be to implement AI and squeeze some benefit out of it. IBM guys were the only ones who were still hyping it hard. Everyone else seems to have their feet on the ground. Those IBM guys were all like: "Just dump all of your data on the model, and it will work things out". Yeah, sure.... With those references, we're not starting an expensive project just to see if it's true.
Also, NFTs. Wasn't there a supposed use case for contract authenticity or something?
Vaporware turns out to be vapor. Shocking.
trackerware corporations couldn't maintain their monetization stranglehold
AI became the new buzzword
Not an expert, but IMO, it’s because it was misused. Cryptocurrency is just one application of blockchain technology, but people equated blockchain to crypto, and crypto was turned into an investment scheme instead of an actual currency. Then came NFTs, which people turned into rugpull scams. And news of the volatility of cryptocurrency and all those NFT scams drove away any chance of regular people adopting anything blockchain-related.
misused
Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.
I'll go ahead and save you "decentralized currency/finance between untrustworthy entities" (i.e. cryptocurrency) because it doesn't actually (and can't actually) solve that in the real world. Humans are too error-prone, and an immutable ledger presents too high a risk for business-ending mistakes for any business with any alternative options to adopt it for their primary revenue pathway.
I'll give you a couple examples of use cases for Blockchain technology that no other technology solves.
As currency:
- Payment system without content restrictions. You might say "But MasterCard said they're not blocking it", but they could, they could pressure Valve into removing other games, or something similar. Such a thing is impossible in Blockchain, there's no single owner that can impose limits to what you can/can't buy with it.
- International transactions without restrictions. We talked about how payment processors can stop transactions, banks and governments can do the same and while they use this power less often it's still generally a pain in the ass to move money from one country to another.
As smart contracts:
- International car ownership deeds. In most countries car ownership has to be registered into the DMV equivalent, this means that moving a car from one country to another is problematic. A smart contract ledger would be an excellent solution to this, countries could use the ledger to transfer ownership and that transfer would be understood by any country that already uses the same ledger as a source of truth, without any of the countries having to trust in the systems built by the other countries.
- Something similar for phones could also include known stolen IMEI numbers that can be blocked internationally without any regulatory organization needing to trust one another or rely in a centralized controlling agency.
i’ll give it a crack
in australia, we have various credentials provided by the government to attest to a persons fitness to work with children (i’ll just refer to these in bulk from now on as WWCC: working with children checks). there are many of these - one per state for individuals, plus teacher’s accreditations per state, and a few more. they’re ongoing certifications, so can be revoked if anything happens
it’s a legal requirement for businesses who engage in activities involving kids to ensure anyone they employ - including volunteers - is appropriately vetted
needless to say, this gets quite complex for national organisations!
i was the engineering lead for a startup that organisations could add their workforce into the system, with the credentials, and the system checked periodically to check that everyone’s credentials are valid, about to expire, etc and notify people if something goes awry
of course, that doesn’t need blockchain BUT
in cases of child sexual abuse, things tend to only come out after 30+ years on average (according to the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse). organisations need to be able to prove that they were doing everything they possibly could to protect the kids under their care. 30 years on that’s no small task! our company might not even exist in 30 years!
along with our automated checks, we also published an event to the eth blockchain: a hash of the card details as an index (ie if you know the card details, you can look up all instances of validation), and a hash that proves the check took place
what’s that hash? well, i won’t get too into the weeds but essentially we push a payload to IPFS which contains:
- a link to a kind of “template” of an HTTP archive for a typical request to the validation service
- a diff that allows you to reconstruct the HTTP archive of this instance of the request given the original template
- various pieces of the HTTPS handshake with the validation service that allow you to essentially validate after the fact that the content of the HTTP archive was exactly what the validation service sent at the time - HTTPS is essentially signed information after all, so we have a chunk of HTML attesting to the validity of a card that’s been signed by the government! cryptographic proof - not just “take my word for it”
we also published a page on IPFS that allows people to enter card details and load all this information and produce all the technical details to prove what happened (we also had plans for some kind of hardware pack with pinned versions of things because browsers and technology change)
you might be able to do this by relying on the date header that the server sends, but to be really sure, writing the hashes to the blockchain proves that the event given happened at a very specific time and date
blockchain shouldn’t be big and flashy: it’s a very niche use-case, but for those niches there’s really nothing like it
Give me an example of a real world problem that was either unsolved before blockchain solved it, or blockchain solves it better than existing alternatives.
International online payment without a company telling you that your legal adult entertainment is morally wrong
Did blockchain solve it? Is blockchain actually pragmatically solving that problem better than existing alternatives? Or is the cost of adopting a blockchain payment system as the primary payment system, with all the risks inherent in it, higher than the benefits when compared to alternatives?
No alternatives existed or exist. You asked for a use case
Would be great if it did, but it doesn't. I'm also not talking about using it as a primary payment system
load more comments
(2 replies)
Turned out that those in control of the tech could control the tech, so contrary to the hype nothing was free, decentralized and scalable. Never.
The money behind the hype went into "AI" instead
AI is the new crypto, crypto still here but its largely used by shady people and conservatives love to invest in a scam, because they play it like its stock, but its easier to understand and less convoluted than a stock, buys, puts,,whatever. the threat of CRYPTO has largely faded into background.
With the recent payment provider shenanigans I wonder if crypto could somehow have its revival among normal people.
So whenever there's a new tech innovation, there are two instances of it.
The first is the actual tech innovation, that often finds a specific use in a few industries, then just becomes part of how things are.
The second is the venture capitalist innovation. It has nothing to do with the technical stuff (as long as the tech is complex enough to impress the average 5th grader). It's more a concept or an idea, and a lot of big promises of unending potential. And as soon as the potential is there, stock prices go up. And that's the only point.
The second one blows up big, then deflates quietly when the next thing takes everyone's attention away. The actual tech innovation usually just finds its niche and quietly chugs away.
Any time anybody talks about a "tech revolution" or some similar word vomit, they're presenting the second thing. Currently we're on "AI" (i.e. LLMs), which will become a niche novelty when the next big thing comes along (I give it a few more years).
Currently we’re on “AI” (i.e. LLMs), which will become a niche novelty when the next big thing comes along (I give it a few more years).
I think llms are overhyped. But at the same time, their two main uses are "better google" and porn, both of which I would hardly describe as "niche".
They're here to stay. But things are ridiculous with every chat app adding AI companions or jetpack for wordpress begging me to generate an AI image
From what I've heard, the biggest problem is the inputs. You can write a 'smart' contract that says 'if I get a pizza, user9000005 pays user30000004 XXX bitcoins' but there's no direct sensor for 'user9000005 has a pizza.' Someone has to manually put it in. At that point, it's not automated. It's just a payment processor with way less certainty, so why bother?
Why less certainty? It's more certain and less censorable than any other digital payment method.
It's harder to doctor, but that's not really the big worry with a contract. Contract disputes are usually more along the lines of 'he didn't pay me' or 'she didn't deliver the goods.' It's much rarer for it to be an 'I signed a contract that said BLAH, but they forged a contract to say BLAGH and faked my signature on it.' As for censorship, I'm not sure what you mean. A government would find it difficult to obscure an on-chain contract but that's also not really an issue. I don't want to guess what you mean.
You're thinking on a very narrow definition of a contract, here's a simple contract example that's currently being censored and wouldn't be censorable on Blockchain: Buy NSFW games.
A simple contract could sell you NFTs for game keys that could be redeemed on Steam/Itch/GoG or even the own dev site. So there's no middleman who could oppose this transaction and say which sort of games can or can't be sold. This whole thing would be completely automated, secure for every part and non-censorable.
You're hearing contracts and thinking on paper legal documents, whereas smart contracts usually refer to programs acting on tokens, the code that acts on those tokens is the contract, in the example above the generation and transfer of the tokens would be the contract.
Exhanges can still ban specific users.
So? Just use another exchange, that's the same as saying paper money is bad because pawn shops might ban specific users.
Its the same problem; any regulation is likely to occur at an exchange level. Successful exchanges will eventually buy out the unsuccessful ones.
They require enough capital to run that they are centralized rather than decentralized. They need to be trusted by users. Its very obvious they're the weak link here.
-
It's actively transforming global agriculture. While the USA failed to innovate Canada has integrated blockchain into it's agricultural sector to facilitate unparalleled traceability.
-
Blockchain transactions are painfully slow compared to other payment processers. BTC is only 7 transactions a second. VISA handles 65,000 transactions per second. That's one of the major reasons we're not seeing more widespread adoption.
-
Crypto currency isn't backed by a nation's GDP; which is effectively the mechanism that gives money value. However USA just passed laws recategorizing crypto issuers as financial institutions; that must comply with regulations such as having a % of their liabilities(crypto) as collateral (Cash). So we shall see where things go.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Expensive and useless. Decentralization was an illusion and they don't solve any real problems
load more comments
(11 replies)
The vast majority of it was driven by speculation and outright scams. The few who were genuinely trying to make a currency couldn't make something competitve with existing systems, as they all ended up with the same problems and then some. Usually, blockchain based systems are very slow, expensive, centralized (in who has control over it), hard to regulate, and insecure. The only real advantage they have, is being harder to modify records for, meaning they're less private and more traceable, if that can even be considered a plus for currency.
As always EU silently doing it right with EBSI, that aims to benefit the public sector (and ultimately the public), and hopefully the digital Euro to come.
It's in the same place as those NFTs that sold for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
view more: next ›