but if blockchains are a bad idea, and they seems like one, what does that imply for web3.0?Web 3.0 is just the internet stack, with distributed database protocols like blockchain added to it.
That databases can be maintained in a distributed fashion without central administration, that the security can be programmed into the protocol itself. Distributed computing isn't new, but as I understand it, what Bitcoin brought to the table was the idea that a bunch of computers, run by different actors, can harmoniously maintain a universal database with very good security.what is this new way of thinking about databases then?
It may be a bad idea to use blockchains for everything, in fact I'd say thats obviously the case. Not everything needs to be stored and accessed in this way. That said, not every blockchain needs to be permissionless. And distributed database technology can be broader than blockchains. There are also examples of "directed acyclic graphs" which aren't classifiable as blockchains, but blockchains are classifiable as DAGs I believe.but if blockchains are a bad idea, and they seems like one, what does that imply for web3.0?
Which is to say, not every blockchain has this kind of security. I also think proof-of-stake makes some security trade-offs, but I just don't understand the nature of this trade-off.That said, this security measure really depends on the network underpinning the database in question to be large enough to prohibit such corruption. If a new blockchain adopted the same code as bitcoin, but with far fewer computers, it would follow that the security would be weaker.
You're definitely right. Security in the sense of protecting my funds from scammers is dependent on factors that the protocols themselves cannot account for, such as whether I keep my private keys safe, whether or not send 1 BTC to someone who promises to send 2 BTC in return, etc.ok if you define security in those terms then sure, but in general is crypto free from scams? I think quite the opposite
right exactly it's open season atm, the space is riddled with scamsYou're definitely right. Security in the sense of protecting my funds from scammers is dependent on factors that the protocols themselves cannot account for, such as whether I keep my private keys safe, whether or not send 1 BTC to someone who promises to send 2 BTC in return, etc.
I'd say the blockchains themselves are secure. The problem is the unscrupulous behavior of investors, and the lack of regulatory protection they have against scammers. It boils down to decisions made by blockchain users, not the protocols themselves.consider the effects, in effect how secure are any of these blockchains?
so, in effect, how secure are these blockchains?I'd say the blockchains themselves are secure. The problem is the unscrupulous behavior of investors, and the lack of regulatory protection they have against scammers. It boils down to decisions made by blockchain users, not the protocols themselves.
Yeah and really this gets at the biggest problems of web3, in my opinion. That this kind of unscrupulous engagement with these protocols is encouraged by the culture of web3, with influencers and advertisers fanning the flames of FOMO.that is in fact the major attraction
I'd still say they are secure, people just need to learn how to use them. Just because I could drive a car onto a sidewalk and mow down a bunch of pedestrians doesn't make cars a prohibitively dangerous technology. Its just a matter of regulation, and analyzing trade-offs.so, in effect, how secure are these blockchains?