Simon Willison’s Weblog

Subscribe
Atom feed for blockchain

10 items tagged “blockchain”

2024

AWS CodeCommit quietly deprecated (via) CodeCommit is AWS's Git hosting service. In a reply from an AWS employee to this forum thread:

Beginning on 06 June 2024, AWS CodeCommit ceased onboarding new customers. Going forward, only customers who have an existing repository in AWS CodeCommit will be able to create additional repositories.

[...] If you would like to use AWS CodeCommit in a new AWS account that is part of your AWS Organization, please let us know so that we can evaluate the request for allowlisting the new account. If you would like to use an alternative to AWS CodeCommit given this news, we recommend using GitLab, GitHub, or another third party source provider of your choice.

What's weird about this is that, as far as I can tell, this is the first official public acknowledgement from AWS that CodeCommit is no longer accepting customers. The CodeCommit landing page continues to promote the product, though it does link to the How to migrate your AWS CodeCommit repository to another Git provider blog post from July 25th, which gives no direct indication that CodeCommit is being quietly sunset.

I wonder how long they'll continue to support their existing customers?

Amazon QLDB too

It looks like AWS may be having a bit of a clear-out. Amazon QLDB - Quantum Ledger Database (a blockchain-adjacent immutable ledger, launched in 2019) - quietly put out a deprecation announcement in their release history on July 18th (again, no official announcement elsewhere):

End of support notice: Existing customers will be able to use Amazon QLDB until end of support on 07/31/2025. For more details, see Migrate an Amazon QLDB Ledger to Amazon Aurora PostgreSQL.

This one is more surprising, because migrating to a different Git host is massively less work than entirely re-writing a system to use a fundamentally different database.

It turns out there's an infrequently updated community GitHub repo called SummitRoute/aws_breaking_changes which tracks these kinds of changes. Other services listed there include CodeStar, Cloud9, CloudSearch, OpsWorks, Workdocs and Snowmobile, and they cleverly (ab)use the GitHub releases mechanism to provide an Atom feed.

# 30th July 2024, 5:51 am / blockchain, aws, git

Follow the Crypto (via) Very smart new site from Molly White tracking the huge increase in activity from Cryptocurrency-focused PACs this year. These PACs have already raised $203 million and spent $38 million influencing US elections in 2024.

Right now Molly's rankings show that the "Fairshake" cryptocurrency PAC is second only to the Trump-supporting "Make America Great Again Inc" in money raised by Super PACs this year - though it's 9th in the list that includes other types of PAC.

Molly's data comes from the FEC, and the code behind the site is all open source.

There's lots more about the project in the latest edition of Molly's newsletter:

Did you know that the cryptocurrency industry has spent more on 2024 elections in the United States than the oil industry? More than the pharmaceutical industry?

In fact, the cryptocurrency industry has spent more on 2024 elections than the entire energy sector and the entire health sector. Those industries, both worth hundreds of billions or trillions of dollars, are being outspent by an industry that, even by generous estimates, is worth less than $20 billion.

# 15th July 2024, 10:06 pm / blockchain, politics, elections, data-journalism, molly-white

But increasingly, I’m worried that attempts to crack down on the cryptocurrency industry — scummy though it may be — may result in overall weakening of financial privacy, and may hurt vulnerable people the most. As they say, “hard cases make bad law”.

Molly White

# 24th May 2024, 1:19 am / blockchain, privacy, molly-white

2023

In 2022, web3 went just great. Molly White’s essential roundup of 2022 in cryptocurrency. “$4.27 billion was stolen in various hacks and scams this year alone”.

# 1st January 2023, 5:13 am / web3, blockchain, molly-white

2021

Imagine writing the investment memo for “20% of a picture of a dog” and being like “the most we should pay is probably about $2 million because the whole picture of the dog sold for $4 million three months ago and it can’t realistically have appreciated more than 150% since then; even if the whole picture of the dog is worth, aggressively, $10 million, this share would be worth $2 milllion.” What nonsense that is!

Matt Levine

# 10th September 2021, 7:27 am / stupid, blockchain, matt-levine

2019

Private blockchains are completely uninteresting. (By this, I mean systems that use the blockchain data structure but don't have the above three elements.) In general, they have some external limitation on who can interact with the blockchain and its features. These are not anything new; they're distributed append-only data structures with a list of individuals authorized to add to it. Consensus protocols have been studied in distributed systems for more than 60 years. Append-only data structures have been similarly well covered. They're blockchains in name only, and -- as far as I can tell -- the only reason to operate one is to ride on the blockchain hype.

Bruce Schneier

# 12th February 2019, 7:14 pm / blockchain, bruce-schneier

2018

Easy explainer: a "blockchain" is a linked list with an append-only restriction, and appending is made incredibly expensive but super parallelizable, so when things work well a big group of people can work together and it's too expensive for a small evil group to compete. [...] Does your problem benefit from storing information in an append-only list, and relying on a central authority to manage it is so bad that it's worth paying the enormous append costs to have a bunch of Chinese servers manage it for you? Then maybe look at a blockchain.

Tab Atkins

# 9th August 2018, 1:27 am / blockchain

A traditional centralized database only needs to be written to once. A blockchain needs to be written to thousands of times. A traditional centralized database needs to only checks the data once. A blockchain needs to check the data thousands of times. A traditional centralized database needs to transmit the data for storage only once. A blockchain needs to transmit the data thousands of times. The costs of maintaining a blockchain are orders of magnitude higher and the cost needs to be justified by utility. Most applications looking for some of the properties stated earlier like consistency and reliability can get such things for a whole lot cheaper utilizing integrity checks, receipts and backups.

Jimmy Song

# 24th May 2018, 2:44 pm / blockchain

Watching companies gradually realize "blockchain is just super expensive consensus and only makes sense for untrusted counterparties" is a wild, expensive trip

Kyle Kingsbury

# 29th March 2018, 9:25 pm / blockchain

Consider Bitcoin a grand middle finger. It’s a prank, almost a parody of the global financial system, that turned into a bubble. “You plutocrats of Davos may think you control the global money supply,” the pranksters seem to say. “But humans will make an economy out of anything. Even this!”

Paul Ford

# 10th March 2018, 11:34 am / paul-ford, bitcoin, blockchain