• Xanza@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    66
    ·
    9 months ago

    If there’s one thing you want in a website used by almost 75 million beneficiaries it’s a platform hastily put together by a crack team of geniuses–that don’t password protect databases–“in months.”

    This is gonna go very very very poorly.

  • wise_pancake@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    46
    ·
    9 months ago

    I’ve been party to dumping legacy systems and lift & shifts a few times.

    Good fucking luck.

    Knowing nothign about this, a project like this would take at least 2 years even if you are dropping a ton of use cases and dependencies.

    • arotrios@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      9 months ago

      Agreed (context: same legacy system work, 20 years), although given the size and scale of the tech debt involved, I’d peg it at 5 years if you had a team of 100+ COBOL developers.

      10 to do it right.

      Once you start dealing with databases older than SQL and languages older than C, things get funky real fast.

  • thr0w4w4y2@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    9 months ago

    Calling it now - it will be written in such a way that Musk’s motley crew will be required to maintain it or update proprietary closed source components at extreme cost forever - practically guaranteeing he will always have full access to the data and be able to charge what he likes for any changes whoever takes power after Trump is gone.

    • Adalast@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      9 months 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
          4
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          9 months 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
            3
            ·
            9 months 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
            ·
            9 months 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.

      • T156@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        9 months 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
          ·
          9 months 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.

      • andioop@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 months 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.

      • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        9 months 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
          ·
          9 months 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.

          • enumerator4829@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            9 months ago

            If your blockchain isn’t distributed, it doesn’t need to be a blockchain, because then you already have trust established.

            • Adalast@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              9 months 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
                ·
                9 months 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.

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

                  Obviously all good questions that those much more informed should weigh in on. I know just enough about blockchain to recognize reasonable vs scam uses for, but I also know enough to not Dunning Kruger the topic.

  • SnausagesinaBlanket@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    ·
    9 months ago

    COBOL systems, when properly maintained, are highly reliable, with built-in redundancy and fault tolerance.

    They can’t have that because they want excuses when it goes down and leaves old people to starve and ruin their credit.