5 ms·

Second Life is a virtual world where virtual stuff can be traded. Blockchain technology is real world technology. It can help to solve really challenging probl

Second Life is a virtual world where virtual stuff can be traded. Blockchain technology is real world technology. It can help to solve really challenging problems and make real world systems more efficient / productive / cost effective / autonomous. The two are in no way comparable... if you're looking for a comparison to Second Life which happens to use blockchain technology, check out Decentraland: https://decentraland.org/ https://decentraland.org/

xyzzyz 9y ago
Bitcoin is no more real life than Second Life is -- both exist in our reality just the same. Virtual goods in second life are no more virtual than bitcoins are -- both are just bits on some hard drives that people agreed to be worth something. There are significant differences between Bitcoin and Second Life, the lack of centralized control in the former being the biggest, but they aren't what you described in your comment.
- Udik 9y ago
  > Bitcoin is no more real life than Second Life is Not a big fan of bitcoin here, but there is a difference which I don't think it's captured by that "lack of centralized control". And it is that bitcoins exist as some sort of mathematical object, that is guaranteed in its working and will exist forever as long as there are people mining the blockchain. They remind me a bit of the ever expanding, mathematically deterministic Autoverse in Egan's Permutation City, for those who have read the novel.
  - xyzzyz 9y ago
    There nothing mathematical about guarantees for bitcoins continuing existence — it really boils down to the social contract between miners that agree to use the same set of rules. See for example the result of the Dao hack in Ethereum world — if there really was any mathematical guarantee to Eth smart contracts, you’d imagine you couldn’t simply revert them by updating the software. The parallel to Egan’s dust theory is interesting, but only valid as long as someone is actually mining blocks using old clients nobody cares about in the long forgotten forks of the chain, which doesn’t really happen.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
You're making the virtual/real world dichotomy with the hindsight of knowing that Second Life didn't go anywhere. People back then also called it a technology: it's a technology that allows e.g. in-person meetings without the need for displacement. It's a technology that disrupts physical space, the ultimate disruption! No, sorry, such dichotomy is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Second Life didn't get traction. How's Bitcoin doing as a technology? Lots of traction! Now it remains to be seen where it can keep it. What applications does it have? I'm not sure, as right now there's some 250k backlogged transactions because currently the blockchain can't seem to handle even a trivial number of transactions.
- patrickaljord 9y ago
  Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday). Second Life traction never got even a fraction of that. Also Blockchain growth has been going for 9 years now, Second Life growth lasted 3 years (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_second_life_failed_how_the_milkshake_test_helps_predict_which_ultra_hyped_technology_will_succeed_and_which_won_t_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_...).
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    > Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday) You know how bubbles work, right? What I mean is that what you've described is compatible with the "bubble" hypothesis just as it is compatible with the "disruption" hypothesis. I need to see the thing solving problems to believe the thing. This is just me though, I'm not trying to convince you. The point I meant to make in my previous post was not a case for/against Bitcoin, but against the idea that "Bitcoin is nothing like Second life". It is in some important sense: there is a reasonable case for both and it's still too early (now for Bitcoin as at the time for SL) whether they can deliver on their promises of disruption. EDIT: But if you want to talk about the credibility of Bitcoin, I notice you didn't respond to my observation. I don't care if it's $0.5tr or $500tr: there's still a backlog of 250k transactions. The thing is unusable right now. Now, this might be solved, yes. But right now it's a serious concern. Do you not agree?

xyzzyz 9y ago

Bitcoin is no more real life than Second Life is -- both exist in our reality just the same. Virtual goods in second life are no more virtual than bitcoins are -- both are just bits on some hard drives that people agreed to be worth something. There are significant differences between Bitcoin and Second Life, the lack of centralized control in the former being the biggest, but they aren't what you described in your comment.

Udik 9y ago
> Bitcoin is no more real life than Second Life is Not a big fan of bitcoin here, but there is a difference which I don't think it's captured by that "lack of centralized control". And it is that bitcoins exist as some sort of mathematical object, that is guaranteed in its working and will exist forever as long as there are people mining the blockchain. They remind me a bit of the ever expanding, mathematically deterministic Autoverse in Egan's Permutation City, for those who have read the novel.
- xyzzyz 9y ago
  There nothing mathematical about guarantees for bitcoins continuing existence — it really boils down to the social contract between miners that agree to use the same set of rules. See for example the result of the Dao hack in Ethereum world — if there really was any mathematical guarantee to Eth smart contracts, you’d imagine you couldn’t simply revert them by updating the software. The parallel to Egan’s dust theory is interesting, but only valid as long as someone is actually mining blocks using old clients nobody cares about in the long forgotten forks of the chain, which doesn’t really happen.

fwdpropaganda 9y ago

You're making the virtual/real world dichotomy with the hindsight of knowing that Second Life didn't go anywhere. People back then also called it a technology: it's a technology that allows e.g. in-person meetings without the need for displacement. It's a technology that disrupts physical space, the ultimate disruption! No, sorry, such dichotomy is irrelevant. What's relevant is that Second Life didn't get traction. How's Bitcoin doing as a technology? Lots of traction! Now it remains to be seen where it can keep it. What applications does it have? I'm not sure, as right now there's some 250k backlogged transactions because currently the blockchain can't seem to handle even a trivial number of transactions.

patrickaljord 9y ago
Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday). Second Life traction never got even a fraction of that. Also Blockchain growth has been going for 9 years now, Second Life growth lasted 3 years (http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_second_life_failed_how_the_milkshake_test_helps_predict_which_ultra_hyped_technology_will_succeed_and_which_won_t_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/business/moneybox/2011/11/why_...).
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  > Blockchains reached a valuation of $0.5 trillion and attracted all the biggest financial institutions (Goldman Sachs yesterday) You know how bubbles work, right? What I mean is that what you've described is compatible with the "bubble" hypothesis just as it is compatible with the "disruption" hypothesis. I need to see the thing solving problems to believe the thing. This is just me though, I'm not trying to convince you. The point I meant to make in my previous post was not a case for/against Bitcoin, but against the idea that "Bitcoin is nothing like Second life". It is in some important sense: there is a reasonable case for both and it's still too early (now for Bitcoin as at the time for SL) whether they can deliver on their promises of disruption. EDIT: But if you want to talk about the credibility of Bitcoin, I notice you didn't respond to my observation. I don't care if it's $0.5tr or $500tr: there's still a backlog of 250k transactions. The thing is unusable right now. Now, this might be solved, yes. But right now it's a serious concern. Do you not agree?