Blockchain technology is going to change everything: the shipping industry, the financial system, government … in fact, what won’t it change? But enthusiasm for it mainly stems from a lack of knowledge and understanding. The blockchain is a solution in search of a problem.
There’s only one good use-case I can imagine for blockchain:
Hospitals sharing data.
At least in Canada, your allergies, sensitivities, or any information about you is only at a single hospital unless you visit another and give them that info yourself. This obviously isn’t ideal, because if you’re in another city and are in a position where you cannot communicate that info when you go to the hospital, things could end up poorly.
What would be really great is if the hospitals could be on their own private blockchain, with each facility acting as a node on the chain. The redundancy of the information and constant sync across all nodes actually makes sense here, and the hospitals would all be updated with the latest information that they receive from one another.
Here in Brazil, this system exists, but without a blockchain, and it works very well. It tracks vaccinations, surgeries, when you went to a hospital or a basic health unit (it’s like a mini hospital for check-ups, vaccination and less severe stuff), etc.
I went to a doctor recently (that I never went before) and he started asking things like “so you broke your arm on 2003? Interesting”.
So I would say that blockchain might not help in that area either haha.
the problem with that argument is that you’re implying that blockchain maintainers are infallible
which we know is also not true
it’s the issue of reinventing the wheel. Do we have a solution that is more energy efficient and affordable for the average user to participate in? yes.
Nothing and no one is ever infallible. What I say is that the web as we know it is broken in that it has become a walled garden controllled by a few companies. And, yes, a lot of web3 doesn’t appear to change that, it’s just old wine in new bottles. We needed to discuss alternatives to different use case (payment and currency systems, how we monetize apps and other products, data hosting and sharing,. …). Energy efficiency and affordability are important issues, but I want to have choice and don’t want to become dependent on 5 or so companies in whatever I do. If that means that I have to pay, I’d be fine with that.
That use case has nothing to do with a blockchain, just private sharing / syncing of data. That’s easily done via webservers and databases, no need for a distributed transfer of ownership ledger.
There’s only one good use-case I can imagine for blockchain:
Hospitals sharing data.
At least in Canada, your allergies, sensitivities, or any information about you is only at a single hospital unless you visit another and give them that info yourself. This obviously isn’t ideal, because if you’re in another city and are in a position where you cannot communicate that info when you go to the hospital, things could end up poorly.
What would be really great is if the hospitals could be on their own private blockchain, with each facility acting as a node on the chain. The redundancy of the information and constant sync across all nodes actually makes sense here, and the hospitals would all be updated with the latest information that they receive from one another.
Here in Brazil, this system exists, but without a blockchain, and it works very well. It tracks vaccinations, surgeries, when you went to a hospital or a basic health unit (it’s like a mini hospital for check-ups, vaccination and less severe stuff), etc.
I went to a doctor recently (that I never went before) and he started asking things like “so you broke your arm on 2003? Interesting”.
So I would say that blockchain might not help in that area either haha.
yeah there’s not really a need that it fulfills that something already existing doesn’t already do better lol
What dies “better” mean? If everything is stored on a single server owned by this one company in Mountain View or so, is it better then?
the problem with that argument is that you’re implying that blockchain maintainers are infallible which we know is also not true
it’s the issue of reinventing the wheel. Do we have a solution that is more energy efficient and affordable for the average user to participate in? yes.
Nothing and no one is ever infallible. What I say is that the web as we know it is broken in that it has become a walled garden controllled by a few companies. And, yes, a lot of web3 doesn’t appear to change that, it’s just old wine in new bottles. We needed to discuss alternatives to different use case (payment and currency systems, how we monetize apps and other products, data hosting and sharing,. …). Energy efficiency and affordability are important issues, but I want to have choice and don’t want to become dependent on 5 or so companies in whatever I do. If that means that I have to pay, I’d be fine with that.
you are literally on a federated platform that does not use blockchain. this seems like the resolution to that issue
Yes, that’s one solution for a specific use case (-:
That use case has nothing to do with a blockchain, just private sharing / syncing of data. That’s easily done via webservers and databases, no need for a distributed transfer of ownership ledger.
see my below comment vv