Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8973938" data-attributes="member: 7028554">Blockchain works as a generic term. But imagining useful, non-crypto applications for the technology always requires keeping thought experiments so vague as to be useless, because blockchain always dies in the details. Using them to deal with deepfakes, for example, would mean that all videos that anyone puts online would have to be registered on a public blockchain, which is a truly dystopic framework. Catastrophic amounts of extra compute and resulting energy consumption, and whatever blockchain the videos would be on would get impossibly large right away, requiring even more consumption and compute to ever do anything with it, and also making interacting with it extremely slow. Say hello to waiting an hour or more to upload a video of some natural disaster or similar event, or else risk releasing the video off-chain, and then no one thinks it's real.Really, I'm not doomsaying for the hell of it. The logistics involved with public blockchains are untenable for everything that isn't entirely profit-motivated, meaning where there's a grift involved.As for deepfakes...I mean, a lot of disinfo experts are trying to get people to realize just how little of a threat they are, compared to just churning out the usual fake articles and social media chatter. If you're worried about more incidents like that minor kerfuffle over the deepfake of Ukraine's leader, it's not like blockchain would have helped there anyway. Would have required everyone looking at the video to have access to the blockchain, using mobile phones in low-bandwidth, internet-compromised areas. Plus, bad actors could just register the video on a blockchain and it would look perfectly fine. Public blockchains let you audit a transaction, and edit the chain later (or make a fork, if necessary) but they don't actually verify the authenticity of anything on them.</blockquote>

Verification