I sold all of my cryptocurrency about 2 years ago because there was no utility to any of the coins I held. When I was younger I held Bitcoin, then when I grew up I invested in ETH and Chainlink. I waited for years, and nothing happened to the cryptocurrency scene at-large that pushed the needle in it's direction. It was a strictly-inferior way to store my money, when I used it.
Considering the popularity of "custodial wallets" today, I might argue that scamming less-intelligent people is the primary business strategy around crypto.
I'm an everyday user. One of my major uses is to send stablecoins to family back in latin america, and ETH/BTC. They can get it and use right away within seconds and paid almost no fee compared to traditional means
High demand back home. People see dollars as valuable, so they can send it to pay other people as needed. Loads of people have a binance account and will accept usdc for goods and services. Also, BTC is accepted everywhere in el salvador which is close to where fam lives so there is a lot of acceptance
There's a government app called Chivo that people use for this, and a lot of shopkeepers do have it, but they begrudgingly accept it. People much prefer USDC because they don't want to get paid in assets that are volatile
The founder of Binance is going to jail in the US, but surely it won’t end badly if people keep their hard-earned dollars on this service. No such thing has ever happened in the history of crypto after all.
I think blockchain would have been exponentially more useful in 1999. Alas, it’s not 1999.
Worked on teams looking at it for a few interesting use cases, but in every case we prototyped, the increasing ubiquity of network signal makes alternatives better.
Many of the use cases that seem ideal for blockchain really need just need digital signatures.
It’s cool tech, but more niche than the hype cycle made it out to be.
Blockchain, or cryptocurrency? Be aware, those are not the same technologies. Blockchain is working fine on its own. There are some projects and usages which are predating the cryptocurrency-terms. The versioning-system git might be the most well known project with this bubble here. But it's also disputed how blockchainy git is. So to name something else, the smart home standard Matter is using a blockchain for managing their certifications or legitimated devices, something like that.
With cryptocurrency on the other side, the most "legit" usage case I've seen so far, is hybrid-NFTs, from DC Tracing Cards. Where you get physical cards, and an NFT alongside it. Not sure how successful or scammy this is, but considering trading cards are an established semi-legit business, I would say this kinda counts as real world.
There are multiple use cases besides the obvious/primary ones of being an alternative means of permissionless value transfer and enabling novel distributed trading instruments (DEFI).
Example: Figure (providing home equity loans) used provenance chain for backend functions such as origination, securitization, and lifecycle management. Many of the "business" use cases are in these opaque areas such as settlements.
When you see knee-jerk comments “tHeRe’s nO uSe CaSe” it’s understandable that most people don’t know what they don’t know about the backend of finance. Yes, there’s a lot of bullshit in the space, and there’s also a lot of valid infrastructure being built. It’s not going away.
A company called Vectorspace Biosciences/Vectorspace AI’s revenue and technology model is based largely on crypto/blockchain. They’re focused on helping to facilitate scientific discovery through what’s essentially AI data analysis, so knowing when and why data changed is critical. Blockchain and their token are used as part of their dataset provenance and security pipeline to help keep track of dataset modifications and history. It also acts as a licensing mechanism, so that tiered API access is granted based on how much of the token is held in the user’s wallet.
The licensing API key part is fairly straightforward. A customer holds X amount of the token in their crypto wallet, and then the wallet address is used as an API key. Different service levels, etc, can be granted based on the amount of token held in the wallet. And API access, customer datasets, etc, can be associated with the wallet-as-an-API-key.
By provenance, I just mean that somebody who’s leveraging a dataset can see the exact history of where the data came from, when it was manipulated, etc. I believe the way it works is that each time data in a dataset is manipulated, a corresponding hash of the dataset is generated and stored on-chain. So if a you had a dataset representing the relationship between some proteins, and a study was published that provided additional data regarding one of those proteins and potential relationships, then the dataset might be updated to reflect the new information, and a hash of the dataset would be created to represent the updated dataset at that point in time. Like a git commit hash. Then they do some proprietary stuff that associates the dataset with the customer wallet address noted above, and that is stored on the blockchain in a transaction using their token.
When you say "see the exact history of where the data came from", what does that mean?
When I publish the string "Dogs have two ears" on a blockchain, that notarizes that I published this string at a certain time or earlier. But how does it tell where the data comes from?
If I understand your question, it’s just a part of their data pipeline. So a new paper is published, they ingest it, and then their language modeling/analysis/etc see that, and your dataset is updated. Presumably what caused the change would be discoverable via the hash.
I should be able to give a better answer, here, but I’m not sure that I can. Not sure that this helps, but this is the non-technical overview currently on their site: https://vectorspacebio.science/technology/
I think all that lingo just makes things more muddy here.
The "dataset" is a string, right? A sequence of characters.
Like "Dogs have two ears".
But what does it mean when you say "know where the data came from"?
If someone publishes that string on a blockchain, you know they published it. Because they signed it. And you know when. Because the blockchain timesteamped it. Fine. But "where it came from"? What does that mean?
So let’s say 1000 scientific papers were published, and we want to see how two proteins relate to one another based on those papers. When I say underlying data or “where the data came from,” I’m referring to the papers.
Those 1000 papers would be run through the data analysis pipeline to generate a “dataset” representing the relationships. For instance, a CSV file of the relationship information.
That dataset is what is hashed, and that hash is the “string” that is published on-chain.
It would be like if you had a bunch of papers about how many ears animals have, whether they have fur, where they’re from, etc, and you want to find out how those things relate to one-another. The info about ears and fur is the “data that changed” and the “dataset” is essentially vectors for how the information relates to each other. Then that dataset is hashed, etc, and that hash is what’s stored on chain. Then when another paper is added, the relationships csv changes, and that is re-hashed and published.
It’s hard to describe this without some jargon, just because of what we are discussing. I left another comment before with a diagram that might or might not help.
I think you are cought up in trying to make things sound grandiose.
Why "1000 scientific papers"? Why not 500? 200? 17? 3? 2? How many are needed to make your point? Why "scientific"? Does it only work for "scientific" papers? Why "papers"? Does it not work for strings in general?
Same for "proteins", "underlying data", "data analysis pipeline" and all the other concepts you introduce.
If you comb through all of this and remove everything not necessary to explain the underlying idea, maybe you get to something and maybe not. I don't know.
Imagine we understood blockchains already and someone wants to explain the payment functionality of Bitcoin with a garden of wonderful terms like you do. "Thousands of virtual banks connected to millions of owners. Payments flowing through this massive global network instantly and nearly free, guaranteed by scientific cryptographic proof". It would tell us nothing.
What we need is:
With a blockchain, we can create an ordered list of messages like "I give coin 17 to Bob. Signed: Alice"
That explains everything we need to know to understand how payments are possible on top of a blockchain.
That's the type of statement I would dig for if you want to know if there is actually something useful about a technology.
Because this whole thread is about how a specific company is using blockchain in the context of their business. The business context is relevant. This is a biosciences company and their tools are meant to be used in the context of scientific discovery.
I included a more basic answer in my last response that followed your concept of dogs with ears. Why wasn’t that abstraction simple enough to avoid this criticism?
This is about as simple as I can make this.
1. Collect source data
2. Run data analysis
3. Processed dataset is generated
4. Processed dataset is hashed
5. Hash is combined with the API wallet address and rehashed
6. That hash is stored on chain and with a transaction involving their token
7. Data from step 1 changes, repeat
Why 1000 papers? Because…I picked 1000? Sure, choose 10. Whatever. Does that really affect whether you can understand what I’m saying?
Why data analysis pipeline? Because the graphic that I sent you has its literal first step as “language modeling pipeline” and I was trying to avoid getting flamed for mentioning language modeling. https://ibb.co/5rBnTsv Substitute “analyze data” if you want to. But it’s silly that I can’t use the word “pipeline” on a technology forum.
Why underlying data? Because I need to differentiate between the raw, pre-processed data and the post-processed data, the latter of which is actually being hashed. I figure this was important since the whole point of this thread was how blockchain is being used.
Why proteins? Because it’s a biosciences company with a product called The Protein-Protein Interaction Network (PPIN) API, and that’s a common example they use when explaining what they do. From https://vectorspacebio.science/cmdb, A REST-based API which can be used to generate a multi-level graph network from a correlation matrix dataset. The graph network represents context-dependent known and hidden relationships between proteins, pathways, drug compounds and molecular sequences.
Did I have to choose proteins? I guess not. They have products to be used in financial markets as well that use the same technology. Technically this can be implemented in any domain. I just picked a particular one.
Why scientific papers and not just papers? Same response as above.
Not sure how much further we are going to get with this conversation, to be honest. But I’m trying to operate in good faith.
1. Collect source data
2. Run data analysis
3. Processed dataset is generated
4. Processed dataset is hashed
5. Hash is combined with the API wallet address and rehashed
6. That hash is stored on chain and with a transaction involving their token
7. Data from step 1 changes, repeat
It is getting more structured. I like that.
The way I read this:
- A company created a dataset and updates it from time to time.
- For each update, they put a hash of the dataset on a blockchain.
Ok. And what is the use case? What would be different if they did not publish the hashes on a blockchain?
> A company created a dataset and updates it from time to time.
I suppose update frequency doesn’t matter from the perspective of just conveying how it works, but it could be updated frequently. For instance, any time a paper is published, or if the customer provided a data stream, etc.
> Ok. And what is the use case? What would be different if they did not publish the hashes on a blockchain?
The idea of blockchain is “don’t trust, verify,” right? Imagine you’re a researcher and you’re using this company’s services. Having the hashes on-chain allows you to verify the integrity of the data over time. Having it on-chain removes attack vectors associated with e.g. a standard database. Similarly, all of Vectorspace’s tooling for various services benefit from the same assurances that the data is sound. So like I said initially: data provenance.
Store of value is a narrative which became dominant in the libertarian fueled Bitcoin community. There is so much more happening:
- Anonymous and bordeless payments, digital cash, the whole point of Bitcoin in the first place
- DeFi, basically fully FOSS, permissionless trustless financial system where people can take loans, get interest on savings, trade, etc
- Identity, being able to verify reputation and decentralized naming like ENS
- Space for artists and pseudo-artists to serve a niche but sizable clientele of NFT buyers
- Funding public goods, regenerative finance employed by crypto communities is probably the best way of funding FOSS I have seen
- DAOs and coordination mechanisms for decentralized communities
...
My dude, you should find a better hobby than just posting on HN crypto posts to spread some FUD. I appreciate skepticism, but you have an axe to grind.
I can name a lot of counterexamples, however most of them are illegal under US federal law so it's a bit of a moot point.
There are legal counterexamples, but the majority that come to mind are equally well-served with fiat. If you ask me to come up with a good, legal reason to hold cryptocurrency, I may well tell you that there is none even if there are a few marginal situations that justify it.
Distributed blockchain applications are normally unnecessary when they are used though, and absolutely overkill when applied with distributed proofs. Very often a network only needs a secured channel to operate, which can be established with much lower overhead than a blockchain. Currency seems to be the only application that would respect such extreme security measures, and that's really only highlighted the low throughput and capacity problems.
I really do feel the same about blockchains as I do about cryptocurrency. Both have extremely limited applications that appear marketable and attractive to nerd-adjacent circles, but only show their drawbacks once fully invested.
The intention behind creating a blockchain (or even some cryptocurrency) is pure in it's inception. The application of both technologies is so messy that I would recommend most people stick with simpler options.
Millions have lost money due to this pyramid / ponzi scheme, and people like you trying to justify it with nonsense ad hominems.
It is well documented that crypto absolutely has no legitimate use case whatsoever that works better than the current system other than speculation, ransomware, etc.
Considering the popularity of "custodial wallets" today, I might argue that scamming less-intelligent people is the primary business strategy around crypto.
I know that they are required to do so, but so far I have not heard about how the compliance is.
Worked on teams looking at it for a few interesting use cases, but in every case we prototyped, the increasing ubiquity of network signal makes alternatives better.
Many of the use cases that seem ideal for blockchain really need just need digital signatures.
It’s cool tech, but more niche than the hype cycle made it out to be.
With cryptocurrency on the other side, the most "legit" usage case I've seen so far, is hybrid-NFTs, from DC Tracing Cards. Where you get physical cards, and an NFT alongside it. Not sure how successful or scammy this is, but considering trading cards are an established semi-legit business, I would say this kinda counts as real world.
Sure, it has quarter to quarter volatility, but year on year, given the 4 year halvening cycles, it is proven to be a tremendous store of value.
Mostly thanks to built-in scarcity, dollar-printing and nothing else.
Example: Figure (providing home equity loans) used provenance chain for backend functions such as origination, securitization, and lifecycle management. Many of the "business" use cases are in these opaque areas such as settlements.
When you see knee-jerk comments “tHeRe’s nO uSe CaSe” it’s understandable that most people don’t know what they don’t know about the backend of finance. Yes, there’s a lot of bullshit in the space, and there’s also a lot of valid infrastructure being built. It’s not going away.
Disclaimer: I’m an investor.
How do they use blockchain? Can you tell it without jargon?
The licensing API key part is fairly straightforward. A customer holds X amount of the token in their crypto wallet, and then the wallet address is used as an API key. Different service levels, etc, can be granted based on the amount of token held in the wallet. And API access, customer datasets, etc, can be associated with the wallet-as-an-API-key.
By provenance, I just mean that somebody who’s leveraging a dataset can see the exact history of where the data came from, when it was manipulated, etc. I believe the way it works is that each time data in a dataset is manipulated, a corresponding hash of the dataset is generated and stored on-chain. So if a you had a dataset representing the relationship between some proteins, and a study was published that provided additional data regarding one of those proteins and potential relationships, then the dataset might be updated to reflect the new information, and a hash of the dataset would be created to represent the updated dataset at that point in time. Like a git commit hash. Then they do some proprietary stuff that associates the dataset with the customer wallet address noted above, and that is stored on the blockchain in a transaction using their token.
Does that make sense?
When you say "see the exact history of where the data came from", what does that mean?
When I publish the string "Dogs have two ears" on a blockchain, that notarizes that I published this string at a certain time or earlier. But how does it tell where the data comes from?
I should be able to give a better answer, here, but I’m not sure that I can. Not sure that this helps, but this is the non-technical overview currently on their site: https://vectorspacebio.science/technology/
The "dataset" is a string, right? A sequence of characters.
Like "Dogs have two ears".
But what does it mean when you say "know where the data came from"?
If someone publishes that string on a blockchain, you know they published it. Because they signed it. And you know when. Because the blockchain timesteamped it. Fine. But "where it came from"? What does that mean?
Those 1000 papers would be run through the data analysis pipeline to generate a “dataset” representing the relationships. For instance, a CSV file of the relationship information.
That dataset is what is hashed, and that hash is the “string” that is published on-chain.
It would be like if you had a bunch of papers about how many ears animals have, whether they have fur, where they’re from, etc, and you want to find out how those things relate to one-another. The info about ears and fur is the “data that changed” and the “dataset” is essentially vectors for how the information relates to each other. Then that dataset is hashed, etc, and that hash is what’s stored on chain. Then when another paper is added, the relationships csv changes, and that is re-hashed and published.
It’s hard to describe this without some jargon, just because of what we are discussing. I left another comment before with a diagram that might or might not help.
Why "1000 scientific papers"? Why not 500? 200? 17? 3? 2? How many are needed to make your point? Why "scientific"? Does it only work for "scientific" papers? Why "papers"? Does it not work for strings in general?
Same for "proteins", "underlying data", "data analysis pipeline" and all the other concepts you introduce.
If you comb through all of this and remove everything not necessary to explain the underlying idea, maybe you get to something and maybe not. I don't know.
Imagine we understood blockchains already and someone wants to explain the payment functionality of Bitcoin with a garden of wonderful terms like you do. "Thousands of virtual banks connected to millions of owners. Payments flowing through this massive global network instantly and nearly free, guaranteed by scientific cryptographic proof". It would tell us nothing.
What we need is:
With a blockchain, we can create an ordered list of messages like "I give coin 17 to Bob. Signed: Alice"
That explains everything we need to know to understand how payments are possible on top of a blockchain.
That's the type of statement I would dig for if you want to know if there is actually something useful about a technology.
I included a more basic answer in my last response that followed your concept of dogs with ears. Why wasn’t that abstraction simple enough to avoid this criticism?
This is about as simple as I can make this.
1. Collect source data 2. Run data analysis 3. Processed dataset is generated 4. Processed dataset is hashed 5. Hash is combined with the API wallet address and rehashed 6. That hash is stored on chain and with a transaction involving their token 7. Data from step 1 changes, repeat
Why 1000 papers? Because…I picked 1000? Sure, choose 10. Whatever. Does that really affect whether you can understand what I’m saying?
Why data analysis pipeline? Because the graphic that I sent you has its literal first step as “language modeling pipeline” and I was trying to avoid getting flamed for mentioning language modeling. https://ibb.co/5rBnTsv Substitute “analyze data” if you want to. But it’s silly that I can’t use the word “pipeline” on a technology forum.
Why underlying data? Because I need to differentiate between the raw, pre-processed data and the post-processed data, the latter of which is actually being hashed. I figure this was important since the whole point of this thread was how blockchain is being used.
Why proteins? Because it’s a biosciences company with a product called The Protein-Protein Interaction Network (PPIN) API, and that’s a common example they use when explaining what they do. From https://vectorspacebio.science/cmdb, A REST-based API which can be used to generate a multi-level graph network from a correlation matrix dataset. The graph network represents context-dependent known and hidden relationships between proteins, pathways, drug compounds and molecular sequences.
Did I have to choose proteins? I guess not. They have products to be used in financial markets as well that use the same technology. Technically this can be implemented in any domain. I just picked a particular one.
Why scientific papers and not just papers? Same response as above.
Not sure how much further we are going to get with this conversation, to be honest. But I’m trying to operate in good faith.
The way I read this:
Ok. And what is the use case? What would be different if they did not publish the hashes on a blockchain?I suppose update frequency doesn’t matter from the perspective of just conveying how it works, but it could be updated frequently. For instance, any time a paper is published, or if the customer provided a data stream, etc.
> Ok. And what is the use case? What would be different if they did not publish the hashes on a blockchain?
The idea of blockchain is “don’t trust, verify,” right? Imagine you’re a researcher and you’re using this company’s services. Having the hashes on-chain allows you to verify the integrity of the data over time. Having it on-chain removes attack vectors associated with e.g. a standard database. Similarly, all of Vectorspace’s tooling for various services benefit from the same assurances that the data is sound. So like I said initially: data provenance.
What would be the simplest example of "using this company’s services"? Maybe an API call like this?
And that returns "2"?Now you know that the company claims that dogs have 2 ears.
How does the fact that they published a hash on a blockchain allow you to "verify" that statement?
At best, you can say "The company claims that dogs have 2 ears and they did so 3 months ago already", right?
But the hash does not help you verify the claim on how many ears a dog has.
If you search for Chris Dixon in the podcast sphere you can find a lot of interviews (to promote the book) and get the digest in 1h-ish.
https://ycharts.com/indicators/ethereum_transactions_per_day
Slightly less libertarian use than what some blockchain enthusiasts are envisioning, but a real use case.
https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technische_Sicherheitseinric... (sorry, can only find German info right now)
hold enough amounts of main cryptocurrencies (such as btc, eth, bch, usdc, usdt) and you can be a market maker making a few bps per transaction.
https://certificate.transparency.dev/
There are legal counterexamples, but the majority that come to mind are equally well-served with fiat. If you ask me to come up with a good, legal reason to hold cryptocurrency, I may well tell you that there is none even if there are a few marginal situations that justify it.
For blockchain, there exist some good (and legitimate) applications.
Cryptocoins otoh... lots of gray area there. If not outright Ponzi schemes.
I hope some day, some crypto coin(s) will fulfill their original promise. But that day is not today.
I really do feel the same about blockchains as I do about cryptocurrency. Both have extremely limited applications that appear marketable and attractive to nerd-adjacent circles, but only show their drawbacks once fully invested.
The intention behind creating a blockchain (or even some cryptocurrency) is pure in it's inception. The application of both technologies is so messy that I would recommend most people stick with simpler options.
Millions have lost money due to this pyramid / ponzi scheme, and people like you trying to justify it with nonsense ad hominems.
It is well documented that crypto absolutely has no legitimate use case whatsoever that works better than the current system other than speculation, ransomware, etc.
So it is just as simple as to say the fact that:
"There are none. Period."