DOGE Plans to Rebuild SSA Codebase in Months - eviltoast
  • Adalast@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    5 days ago

    I mean, technically SSA data might be a legitimate use of the blockchain. I am one of the biggest opponents of the whole mess, but there are use cases for a persistent immutable data record, and social security numbers would be one of them.

      • dreadbeef@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Damn why doesn’t git just use sql instead of Merkle trees I guess that’s just stupid tell Linus to get to using SQLite asap!!!

        But no, you’re wrong. Cryptographically verifiable merkle trees are a valuable way to store changing data. Unlike your recommendations, they don’t satisfy the needs of verification, which is literally a great use-case for ssns. Now I’ll admit that the SSN db doesn’t need to be distributed, which is the only thing a blockchain adds to that equation. But you are just flat out wrong for suggesting a sql db 😂

        • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          4 days ago

          Or you know, trusted timestamps and cryptographic signatures via normal PKI. A Merkle tree isn’t worth shit legally if you can’t verify it against a trust outside of the tree.

          All of the blockchain bullshit miss that part - you can create a cryptographic representation of money or contracts, but you can’t actually enforce, verify or trust anything in the real world without intermediaries. On the other hand, I can trust a certificate from a CA because there are verifiable actual real-world consequences for someone if that CA breaks legal agreements.

          I’ll use a folder of actual papers, signed using a pen. Have some witnesses, make sure they have a legal stake and consequences, and you are golden.

        • tyler@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          Blockchain is three things, not just a merkle tree.

          1. Distributed
          2. Cryptographically signed
          3. Distrust of all others on the chain.

          Git isn’t a blockchain. Blockchain requires mistrust, else it’s just previous technology that existed decades before.

    • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      4 days ago

      Distributed blockchains are useful when all of the below are fulfilled:

      • Need for distributed ledger
      • Peers are adversarial w.r.t. contents of transactions in the ledger
      • Enough peers exist so that no group can become a majority and thus assume control
      • No trusted central authority exists

      Here, we have a single peer creating entries in a ledger. We can get away with a copy of the ledger and one or more trusted timestamping authorities.

      • Adalast@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        I didn’t say distributed. You are absolutely correct though. I was more observing that of all the BS tech bro babble that our Oligarch in Chief could spew into the universe, blockchain would be one that could be implemented reasonably.

          • Adalast@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            There are actually other comments on this thread that provide other benefits besides trust, like modification tracing. There is more to it than just trust.

            • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 day ago

              You mean a transparency log? Just sign and publish. Or if it’s confidential, have a timestamp authority sign it, but what’s the point of a confidential blockchain? Sure, we han have a string of hashes chained together á la git, but that’s just an implementation detail. Where does the trust come from, who does the audit? That’s the interesting part.

    • andioop@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      4 days ago

      My heart breaks for cool ideas that got taken by scammers and are now forever associated with financial predators and will probably never see legitimate use.

    • T156@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 days ago

      Except that the numbers are also prone to change, like if it’s been stolen. They’re technically not supposed to be an identification code anyhow.

      • Tempy@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        5 days ago

        Right, but you can have entries in a block chain that indicate previous entries are no longer valid, or have modifications. Calculating a final state by walking through all the blocks in the chain. ( A bit like a CQRS based system can have a particular state at a point in time by replaying all events up to that point)

        Doing it in such a way also makes auditing what’s happened much easier since changes are inherently reflected in the chain. You want to know when (or by who if you keep that information) a record changes, it’s right their in the chain.