Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

I Blockchain, Therefore I Am
American Thinker.com ^ | January 2, 2021 | Paige Donner

Posted on 01/02/2021 6:37:04 AM PST by Kaslin

If you’re starting to feel like you’re in some kind of a live punk’d version of The Sting (the classic Robert Redford, Paul Newman film for our younger readers) then you are not alone. Put another way, those of you who are beginning to feel that we’re not only living in an “upside-down world,” as some conservative pundits are wont to say, but are living in a world that has fully become one big con job, divorced from truth, then join the crowd.

One of the active ingredients in this false construct of today’s fabricated reality is the notion that if it’s truthful it must be verified on the blockchain. For the uninitiated,

A blockchain is a growing list of records called blocks which are interconnected by utilizing cryptography. Each block contains a cryptographic hash of the previous block, a time stamp, and exchange information. Utilizing blockchain we can safely store information over the shared system, where everybody can see but can’t do any alteration. Blockchain will track all information trade called ledger and it uses a distributed system to verify every exchange.

In other words, blockchain consists of fixed bits of information that cannot be altered, that are connected to each other, and that can be verified by everyone. This verification leads to the concept that whether something is truthful can be measured by whether it is ‘verified’ on the blockchain. This of course begs two questions: Whether blockchain verifies the truth of those bits of information or merely their existence? And whether something that is not verified on the blockchain can still be verifiably truthful?

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 01/02/2021 6:37:04 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Simply put, blockchain—or any good encryption/digital signature method—cannot verify the truth or veracity of the original data, just that it isn’t tampered with once written.

You could use blockchain on the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. It doesn’t make the story true.


2 posted on 01/02/2021 7:08:23 AM PST by Alas Babylon! ("You, the American people, are my only special interest." --President Donald J. Trump)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Didn’t it used to be called a checksum?


3 posted on 01/02/2021 7:13:14 AM PST by Poser (Cogito ergo Spam - I think, therefore I ham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The blockchain will verify that “something” was done, somewhere at some time.

It is useful for tracking assets—almost like a universal postmark.

But if what is attached the blockchain is BS...then the BS can be tracked to a specific time and place. ONLY that part of the blockchain is “truth.”

I know it sounds almost like a religion. People need to take a basic relational data base course. It is logical and simple and boils down to: GIGO.


4 posted on 01/02/2021 7:13:54 AM PST by Vermont Lt (We have entered "Insanity Week." Act accordingly.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’m a technical person at heart. But I’m certainly not a blockchain expert. I understand how it works at a high level.

Ever since the election ‘irregularities,’ I have thought that a blockchain system with free access to the source code would cut way down on election fraud.

Here’s hoping someone way smarter than me will take a look at this.


5 posted on 01/02/2021 7:20:19 AM PST by upchuck (My Christmas wish for term limits was not granted. Bah! Humbug!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

https://www.coindesk.com/mit-paper-rejects-blockchain-based-voting-systems-elections


6 posted on 01/02/2021 8:18:41 AM PST by isthisnickcool (1218 - NEVER FORGET!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poser
Didn’t it used to be called a checksum?

Similar to a checksum or a hash. The problem with checksums is collisions: different data can produce the same checksums, so they use hashes instead. But the difference between those two and a digital signature is that the digital signature starts with a private key that only the signer can access. So when you verify the signature with the public key (which everybody can access and is printed in the article), you know the signature was created with the corresponding private key.

Unless the private key was stolen. Also doesn't mean the holders of the private key have any credibility whatsoever which is the point of the article.

7 posted on 01/02/2021 8:59:51 AM PST by palmer (Democracy Dies Six Ways from Sunday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: palmer

“Also doesn’t mean the holders of the private key have any credibility whatsoever which is the point of the article.”

Exactly. GIGO!


8 posted on 01/02/2021 10:34:06 AM PST by Poser (Cogito ergo Spam - I think, therefore I ham)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Vermont Lt
It is logical and simple and boils down to: GIGO.

Exactly. What's really rare these days is simple common sense.

9 posted on 01/02/2021 10:39:51 AM PST by amorphous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson