Smart Blockchain? More like Bollockschain
This is not actually a story about criticizing blockchain technology, but rather a cautionary tale of people using big fancy words to try to pull a fast one on you.
A litmus test
Blockchains and cryptocurrencies. All the cool kids are talking about it these days, but how many of them actually understand what they’re talking about? Let’s try and find out!
Our approach to this should be fairly straight-forward: the next time you find yourself in a conversation with someone who is trying to impress you with these kinds of buzzwords, try asking them to explain the underlying concepts to you in layman’s terms. You’d be surprised at the results.
At the risk of actually learning something, you’ll most likely find very few people who will be able to give you a good explanation that goes beyond parroting some catch-phrases. And when I say a good explanation, I mean good in the sense that even a 6 year old would be able to understand.
If you can’t explain it to a six year old, you don’t understand it yourself. — Albert Einstein
Now don’t get me wrong; I don’t claim to be an expert on these topics either so take my views with a grain of salt. Even with my limited knowledge on Blockchain technology however, I can see where employing a distributed ledger of verifiable transactions would make sense and where it could be seen as a questionable choice.
For example: applying it to take on the role of trust service providers like notaries would make sense to me. Applying it only in name to make an ice-tea company 200% more valuable on the stock market however does not.
The old adage of ‘using the right tool for the right job’ applies here as well, and it only becomes a problem when people conflate this way of thinking with silver bullets. Or stop thinking altogether in the case of iced tea beverages.
#FakeNews
Speaking of silver bullets, instead of taking something like Blockchain at face value, some cybersecurity “pundits” like van Rijkbroek claim that it is also the be-all end-all cure to all your cybersecurity woes. More specifically, van Rijkbroek claims that the Blockchain is a solution to mitigate DDoS attacks on websites as well. She even doubles down on these claims in a follow up response: despite the criticism she has received from IT experts, she assures us that the use of a so-called “Smart Blockchain” would enhance one’s cybersecurity. All the while conveniently leaving out how of course.
The sheer amount of buzzwords van Rijbroek spouts when making these claims almost comes across as a CSI episode where the supposed brainy archetype is trying to establish some intellectual dominance through the incoherent use of scientific terminology. I mean, those are some pretty big words being strung together, so she must be super duper smart right? RIGHT?
It is hard not to feel intimidated by this, especially if this kind of parlance is foreign to you. Isn’t it the job of an interviewer however to challenge these types of claims and ask for clarification on behalf of her audience? I mean, what the heck is a ‘Smart Blockchain’ anyway and how many of those do I need to change a lightbulb? Unfortunately, like most of us tend to do in similar circumstances, the interviewer did little to no challenging. This in turn allowed van Rijbroek to freely continue her questionable ramblings.
As for van Rijbroek’s claim that the Blockchain is able to mitigate DDoS attacks on websites, I’m not exactly sure what to make of this. Sure, there are services like Gladius that claim to help mitigate DDoS attacks by brokering unused bandwidth of participating nodes on a token basis, but the point of contention remains: the Blockchain itself is not really responsible for mitigating DDoS attacks on websites in those cases, but rather seems to act as the accounting mechanism through which the DDoS mitigating service is being offered. It is easy to confuse the two as being one and the same, just like it is easy to conflate Smart Contracts with Blockchain. Maybe that also gives us some insight on how an amalgamation like “Smart Blockchain” came to make sense in van Rijbroek’s mind — and most likely, only her mind.
Thinking is hard, let’s go shopping
The way van Rijbroek’s interview was conducted exacerbates people’s understanding of new technology. Somewhere along the line, it has apparently become a faux pas to openly admit that you don’t know what something actually means. And that you’d love to learn more about it by soliciting an ELI5 explanation from the person you’re talking to. Answering these types of questions might also be to the benefit of the explainer as it allows them to reassess their understanding on matters too. Doesn’t this sound like a win-win scenario to you?
Dr. Jordan B. Peterson would probably underscore this belief as he often claims in his psychology lectures that a good conversation is one where the parties involved have the mutual goal of becoming wiser. Yet our egos often seem to prevent this line of questioning for fear of being considered a burden, or worse — dumb.
This kind of thinking may put the unrealistic expectation on people to be all-knowing. That in turn seems to make it harder for us to challenge potential flaws in group-think. Our trust and reliance of others being knowledgeable on matters can have a cascading effect that might be to the detriment of us all:
“One danger is that if I think I understand because the people around me think they understand, and the people around me all think they understand because the people around them all think they understand, then it turns out we can all have this strong sense of understanding even though no one really has any idea what they’re talking about.” — Steven Sloman, professor of Cognitive Sciences at Brown University
Paranoid Android
So what is the main take-away from all this? Should people who present themselves as being knowledgeable on certain matters be scrutinized by default for fear of coming up short when pressed for further elaboration?
No, it would be a fool’s errand to question all the things, all the time. Our minds are simply not wired to process or disseminate all this kind of information continuously. Instead, we rely on shortcuts like looking at one’s field of education and/or job-experience as markers for their level of expertise on certain topics (thanks Frank!).
It is not the only thing we should rely on though as these markers can be circumvented fairly easily: some common sense, elbow-grease and critical thinking are all welcomed additions lest we end up with more van Rijbroek incidents. Heck, I would even encourage you to scrutinize my views on Blockchain in this write-up as I am no expert on the matter. Far from it actually. And even though my interests currently lie elsewhere, I’m open to learn from pundits (so feel free to comment if you see any mistakes!).
And that also brings me to my final thought on the matter: there is a difference between needing to know and wanting to know (thanks Dirk!). If you plan on actually using something like the Blockchain for a living, it would probably be wise to put some more effort into learning the ins and outs of it too as opposed to someone who might just be looking into it for leisure.
The litmus test given at the beginning of this article may be useful to you in both cases as it can act as either a good conversation starter, or as a “bug-spray” for overzealous buzzword slinging hipsters 😉
