>50% of the population still think a blockchain is some kind of magic

[d5000]

I just saw the following statement in a global poll by Consensys (the company managing Metamask) and couldn't resist to create a thread about this:

Over 75% of respondents are concerned about AI generating fake news and fraudulent content, while 54% believe blockchain can mitigate those risks.

Source: Consensys report press release

Most of these 54% chose the option "Yes, but I'm not sure how", while an outright "Yes" was much less common.

I think this is very insightful, because it shows the low amount of knowledge people have about Bitcoin and blockchains. And this is also probably the reason why people still massively fall into scams promising all kinds of "magic" features from "blockchains".

Really, how should that blockchain-based magic "removal of AI fake news" even work? Okay, let's see one of the companies proposing to tackle that problem: fact.technology.

Through governance vote, rules are formed and decisions are enforced within the Protocol. All FACT token holders except NRs and NVs can exercise their right to governance vote.

Source: Whitepaper

Lol. So basically, the richest users determine what is correct and what is fake. While it does solve the sybil attack problem somewhat, it is easily manipulable, and if the founders hold lots of the tokens (like it's common in altcoins) then they basically are those deciding about the "correctness" of a fact.

This protocol doesn't solve anything. AI content being "curated" by rich entities like Meta, X or Google is nothing new, and doesn't need blockchains at all.

Blockchains are not magic. There are very few applications which solve real problems and really need blockchains. The Bitcoin use case, a censorship resistant decentralized currency, is the most significant of them.


PS: Mods, if you believe this belongs into the altcoin forum please move it. I think it fits better here as it covers all blockchains.

[franky1]

decentralised blockchains can be used in a way to both time stamp some data and also archive it in a way that the original archived version cant be edited later

so say for instance someone took an original photo of a celebrity, sat alone at a beach. they* could timestamp the hashfile of the image and also decentralised data store the photo.
*they=source photographer/celebrity involved(to protect their property/likeness/copyright)
there are ways to have identity verification whereby the original source participants sign to say they are the copyright owners and the celebrity agrees that the image is genuine

it doesnt need to be some elite governing central group being judge of authenticity..

thus when editors use AI to photo edit someone to be in some sexual affair by putting another person into the photo. the blockchained version of the photo can corroborate that the AI generated photo is not the original and that the original photo is genuine

so yes there are things blockchains can do

however, what it cant do is change someones misinformed opinion thats not based on facts/data
it cant stop idiots spewing bullcrap comments that are not backed up by any source, which is why when you read any news, try and find some source info backing up the story or debunking it

[Upgrade00]

It may not be that they think it's magic, but rather some advanced form of technology which has some relation with consensus and some other buzz words. In their minds they could be thinking, if this technology cannot solve the problem then nothing can, so there needs to be a way for it to be able to solve it.

Yes, this can also be the reason people fall for crypto scams mixing blockchain and some buzz words.

so say for instance someone took an original photo of a celebrity, sat alone at a beach. they* could timestamp the hashfile of the image and also decentralised data store the photo.
*they=source photographer/celebrity involved(to protect their property/likeness/copyright)
there are ways to have identity verification whereby the original source participants sign to say they are the copyright owners and the celebrity agrees that the image is genuine

Is this different from social medias with check marks for verified accounts and community notes to fact check what is posted with previously available information?
Your suggested system seems to depend more on the community than the blockchain.

[KingsDen]

The blockchain is so powerful and it is one of the best technology we witnessed this time around. The good aspect of it is that blockchain is not an end another is it a means to an end. It is ever evolving and limitless. We should not be surprised that the powers of blockchain is yet to be fully harnessed. So whatever technology a layman doesn't understand, he sees it as a magic. While believing it is a magic they can over exaggerate the power of that technology. So, to a novice, Blockchain is a total magic and if you don't agree with them, get ready to prove otherwise.

[franky1]

so say for instance someone took an original photo of a celebrity, sat alone at a beach. they* could timestamp the hashfile of the image and also decentralised data store the photo.
*they=source photographer/celebrity involved(to protect their property/likeness/copyright)
there are ways to have identity verification whereby the original source participants sign to say they are the copyright owners and the celebrity agrees that the image is genuine

Is this different from social medias with check marks for verified accounts and community notes to fact check what is posted with previously available information?
Your suggested system seems to depend more on the community than the blockchain.

oh please, learn how blockchains work
it does not require twitter users to manually acknowledge things with human eyes and voices

learn about keypairs, addresses, signatures
learn about hashes, timestamps, sequences of events

[legiteum]

Bitcoin was designed to solve one problem, and one problem only: to allow those who could not safely transact for fear of their government to transact.

That's it. That was Bitcoin's (and generally, blockchain's) only unique contribution to the world. This can be an important problem to solve, but it's also a fairly narrow one.

But then, somewhere along the way, people figured out how to turn Bitcoin into a speculation instrument, which meant that the more people loved Bitcoin, the more money current holders would make.

Then, predictably, people started, well, lying about it in order to pump the market price of Bitcoin. They said Bitcoin and blockchain would do millions of things it could never do, and/or implied that only Bitcoin/blockchain could solve problems that millions of other things solve ("if your problem is a nail, every tool is a hammer", etc.).

You "can" build any app that needs to store data in some fashion using the blockchain architecture. That doesn't mean it's a good idea. Nobody would suggest you write the next blockbuster video game in Perl, even though it's technically possible. Why? Because Perl isn't a speculation instrument worth a trillion dollars.

If it were, then everybody on TV would say that the FAA air traffic control systems should be rewritten in Perl. That voting systems should be re-written in Perl so they would be more "secure" (somehow). That video games should include Perl code so they are better somehow. And so on.

And then programming would be dragged backwards in progress by about 40 years...

[d5000]

decentralised blockchains can be used in a way to both time stamp some data and also archive it in a way that the original archived version cant be edited later

Timestamping is indeed an useful feature in some cases. Basically what you can prove is that some information existed at some point in time. An entity also can prove it knew this information at a certain time.

I think this is however a very small subset of fake news that can be really mitigated by this. Instead of photos like in the example you provided, I think the main application would be fake statements in the form of "I never said X". But it needs the collaboration of the "celebrity", because it would have to sign the information at the time they said/wrote it. Or of some "authority", like a journalist, who may in addition sign the information.

For the photo example ("somebody proves that a photo is authentic"), a simple digital signature of the image would however be enough, because you don't need a blockchain to store it, nor do you really need a timestamp. The root issue here is that you have no double spending problem to solve, which is what blockchains do best. Instead in this case the main thing you want to confirm is that "person X thinks that information Y is correct", and that's what digital signatures achieve already well, but on any storing platform.

I'm however sure that what Consensys wanted to promote with this question are solutions like this fact protocol and other "web3" stuff, which depend on some token/smart contract on Ethereum and another altchain, and on PoS-like "voting" mechanisms which benefit the holders of some speculative token.

[garlonicon]

to allow those who could not safely transact for fear of their government to transact

It doesn't solve that problem either. For example, I sold 99.9% of my BTCs, because of new KYC/AML regulations, since 2025. I still have some coins, just to play with them, if needed, and Bitcoin is still a very interesting project, from the programming perspective, but it will be harder and harder to use it in practice, without having your ID checked by someone.

The problem, which is really solved, is just a double spending problem. If you have "Alice->Bob" and "Alice->Charlie" transaction, then blockchain can tell you, which one is valid, and which one was supported by the hashrate majority. And that's it. There's not that much beyond Byzantine Generals Problem, really (by the way: if you want to execute an example, described by Satoshi, where each General has a computer, then you can use OP_SIZE on DER signature, and lock it into a shared public key, for a given group of Generals, and then, the fastest General can create a transaction, which will claim the whole pot, and will be first broadcasted to the Bitcoin network).

And then programming would be dragged backwards in progress by about 40 years.

We are getting there, but not because of Bitcoin. Recently, the "magic box, that can do everything" is Artificial Intelligence. Blockchain-based ideas will soon hit their limits, if people will find out, that transactions have fees, and if you do a lot of computations, without batching anything, then you have to pay a lot of money for doing that. Also, AI-based models will hit a different limits, when people will notice, that "AI programmed by AI" is not the best way to do things, and can lead to more and more dumb models, which will just turn everything into some kind of echo chamber, where the same data will be just processed over and over again, without adding anything creative.

Really, how should that blockchain-based magic "removal of AI fake news" even work?

Fake news will never be removed, because if some alternative version of the reality is logical, and could happen in theory, then it is hard to falsify it, if you don't have enough data. If you have "Alice->Bob" genuine transaction, and "Alice->Mallory" fake transaction, then both can have valid signatures, and the news saying that "Mallory received coins from Alice" is called "fake news", only because the "hashrate majority" decided to do so. And because all AI models have their limits, and their models are simplified and optimized, to give answers fast enough, there will be always some room for "fake news". Because AI can predict your age, based on your age, with 99% accuracy (and there is always 1% left for fake answers, just because that's how AI models are trained, and that's what prevents them from "overfitting", when you introduce a penalty for producing "too complex solutions").

[franky1]

decentralised blockchains can be used in a way to both time stamp some data and also archive it in a way that the original archived version cant be edited later

Timestamping is indeed an useful feature in some cases. Basically what you can prove is that some information existed at some point in time. An entity also can prove it knew this information at a certain time.

I think this is however a very small subset of fake news that can be really mitigated by this. Instead of photos like in the example you provided, I think the main application would be fake statements in the form of "I never said X". But it needs the collaboration of the "celebrity", because it would have to sign the information at the time they said/wrote it. Or of some "authority", like a journalist, who may in addition sign the information.

well this is where genuine honest news should only publish things they can prove.
yes fake news can say that d5000 is in a sexual relationship with andrew chowe. offering no proof, and yes idiots would beleive it and then use this statement as the gossip to then spread the myth as fact..

however if genuine news published fact with a source reference and such source reference could be accessed easily by readers, then it helps determine which news media to trust/read in future and which media is a dogs pile of crap to not look at

that way people learn which is fake news even easier by seeing which news/media backs up their publishings with proof
especially proof that can be tracked and in a way thats decentralised and immutable

years ago investigative reporters didnt just write stories, they investigated and included quotes and statements and proof. now social media just write anything and call themselves news media journalists.. where by idiots beleive fake news because another idiot calls themselves a journalist

the abuse of "freedom of the press" has lowered the standards of whats "news" and so to improve integrity of news stories, including sources/references/proof would help aid the general publics awareness of who's not fake

..
you can never remove fake news from the internet. but you can lower the chances of how viral it gets by people becoming aware that certain things are not backed by proof, so not worth reading.

even i wish that even the BBC news, fox news etc would whilst talking about a news story during their broadcasts, have a QR code at the bottom of the screen where by it takes viewers to all the statements and quotes and proof that went into their 2minute broadcast of the story.. because many times they just talk about headlines and then move to next story, leaving people to speculate.. even when the story is true..
it would be great to actually see more detail and showing their research

[legiteum]

to allow those who could not safely transact for fear of their government to transact

It doesn't solve that problem either. For example, I sold 99.9% of my BTCs, because of new KYC/AML regulations, since 2025. I still have some coins, just to play with them, if needed, and Bitcoin is still a very interesting project, from the programming perspective, but it will be harder and harder to use it in practice, without having your ID checked by someone.

Definitely agree, but this was the reason Bitcoin was invented.

The problem, which is really solved, is just a double spending problem.

You don't need blockchain to do that. Computers have been solving this problem since the 1950s.

And then programming would be dragged backwards in progress by about 40 years.

We are getting there, but not because of Bitcoin. Recently, the "magic box, that can do everything" is Artificial Intelligence. Blockchain-based ideas will soon hit their limits, if people will find out, that transactions have fees, and if you do a lot of computations, without batching anything, then you have to pay a lot of money for doing that. Also, AI-based models will hit a different limits, when people will notice, that "AI programmed by AI" is not the best way to do things, and can lead to more and more dumb models, which will just turn everything into some kind of echo chamber, where the same data will be just processed over and over again, without adding anything creative.

I agree about AI being the new buzzword-de-jour, but at least there's... there there. Broadly speaking, AI is really just increasingly complicated algorithms that rely on an increasing amount of available data. There's nothing wrong with that basic idea, even if it's misunderstood, overhyped, etc. Blockchain on the other hand was created to solve one narrow computing problem and doesn't uniquely solve anything else.

[garlonicon]

You don't need blockchain to do that. Computers have been solving this problem since the 1950s.

How? If you have a valid signature, then both transactions are valid: "Alice->Bob" and "Alice->Charlie". Both signatures are correct, because Alice has the private key, and can create as many alternative versions, as she wants. And if you don't have a blockchain, and you don't want to have a trusted third party, then how do you want to decide, which version is correct?

[Moreno233]

Bitcoin is more popular than the word blockchain yet a greater percentage of human population have not even heard of Bitcoin and even if they do, it rarely make sense to them. So, I will not be surprise if they have not even heard about it talk more of thinking it was some kind of magic. Maybe you might want to say that some of those who have heard but could not comprehend it might think it was some kind of magic. Although, magic is some big words to use for such description.

[legiteum]

You don't need blockchain to do that. Computers have been solving this problem since the 1950s.

How? If you have a valid signature, then both transactions are valid: "Alice->Bob" and "Alice->Charlie". Both signatures are correct, because Alice has the private key, and can create as many alternative versions, as she wants. And if you don't have a blockchain, and you don't want to have a trusted third party, then how do you want to decide, which version is correct?

Why not have a trusted third party, e.g. an ordinary computer system? There's only one answer to this: because you want to evade government oversight or control into your system. If this is not your goal, then doing any other way is a pointless waste of time and resources.

Today, almost all blockchain-based digital currencies are defacto centralized (with the notable exception of Bitcoin and a few others). In other words, these systems are basically using blockchain for no valid reason other than to pretend they are "like Bitcoin" somehow. But unless evading the government is your goal, there is no reason to add the complexity and costs associated with the blockchain architecture.

Hence, if all you want is to store transactions, and you don't care about government control of those transactions, then computers have been doing this for a half century, and blockchain is not necessary (and indeed, would, net-net, make the system less secure since the architecture as far more complicated and thus adds many more attack points for hackers).

(It's worth noting now that realistically, only Monero and those like it truly solve the problem Bitcoin was initially designed to solve. With chain analysis and widespread KYC connected to so many endpoints, using Bitcoin is not very anonymous--certainly not in a way a criminal would trust their life with. And the Bitcoin network itself is majority-controlled by three known US companies, so Bitcoin could easily be taken over by the US government for instance, by simply ordering these three companies to do it).

[pooya87]

I think this is very insightful, because it shows the low amount of knowledge people have about Bitcoin and blockchains.

Something funny that recently resurfaced and was seen on social media was some sort of survey where they asked different Americans "where does chocolate milk come from" and they were answering "brown cows"!

Your post made me think of that and the point is this lack of knowledge is not limited to Bitcoin/Blockchain, it is becoming a common thing. Generally speaking what I've observed lately is that people are getting dumber, which is the weird part because in modern times they literally have all the knowledge in the world in the palm of their hands and yet for example they use their smart phones to watch cat videos.

Mainstream media makes it even worse.
In a way not all the fault is on people that they think blockchain is a magic solution to everything. The media advertised it as a solution to everything! I still remember back in 2017-ish when they kept creating completely useless projects (usually tokens) and mass advertised them as the solution to various problems like "energy problem" the "healthcare system", and a lot of other weird things.

That "cat-video-watcher" who is just scrolling through the news only reading the headlines before they go and watch their cat videos, sees titles saying "this new blockchain project is going to solve [blank]" over and over, will eventually think blockchain is indeed a magic solution.

[Helena Yu]

Although decentralized blockchain is useful to strengthen security, originality and transparency, but government will not want this since it would ruin their personal mission to corrupt and dirty play.

Bitcoin is one of the example, it was been used to leave from centralization, but government don't happy with people who use mixers, they confiscate the coins and put the developer to the jail.

however, what it cant do is change someones misinformed opinion thats not based on facts/data
it cant stop idiots spewing bullcrap comments that are not backed up by any source, which is why when you read any news, try and find some source info backing up the story or debunking it

Unfortunately due to ChatGPT and shorts videos are making people dumb, most people believe in any FYP contents.

Opinion from a porn star with 10 Million subscribers/followers > 20+ years experience scientist.

[davis196]

Asking people about a technology they don't understand is simply dumb.
It's like someone asking me "What do you think about the AP-1000 US nuclear reactors?" I don't understand anything about nuclear reactors, so I can't give an expert opinion. I don't consider myself to be an expert in both blockchain technology and AI. I would probably give the same answer as those 54%, if someone asks me about blockchain and AI. Many crypto bros used to think that blockchain technology is some kind of silver bullet/panacea, that will solve all global problems. I think that the people inside the crypto community aren't smarter than the people, who know nothing about Bitcoin, altcoins, blockchain technology, mining, nodes, protocols, etc..

[NotATether]

There are a lot of topics involved in cryptocurrency the high people will have a hard time understanding.

Not just blockchain, but just to give you a few: cryptography, ZK proofs, Solidity, and tokenomics.

Learn these, and you will be very useful to crypto startups.

[retreat]

People who believe that blockchain technology can overcome fake news simply do not understand the real purpose of blockchain technology itself. They are too imaginative and think that blockchain technology is like a magical technology that can change anything, or they are indeed less knowledgeable about it but think that they already know everything. Blockchain technology is as simple as secure transactions and does not allow it to be edited, but most people do not understand the essence of it, and instead say that it can ward off fake news or even solve global economic problems, it's just funny.

[NotFuzzyWarm]

Breaking news: >90% of people think smartphones are some kind of magic
Most of the worlds population are totally ignorant about how any technology works, why would be blockchains be an exception?

[legiteum]

Breaking news: >90% of people think smartphones are some kind of magic
Most of the worlds population are totally ignorant about how any technology works, why would be blockchains be an exception?

Why? Because it's worth billions of dollars to crypto whales when people lie about what blockchain can do.

Yes, people are often ignorant about technology, but the crypto industry actively proliferates lies about blockchain because it's profitable to do so.