4 ms·

I hear you, but I have to point out that ML at least have already shown that can solve problems that need to be solved which had no solution before.

alex_duf 9y ago
So did the blockchain Edit: not trying to defend bitcoin here, just pointing that the blockchain brought a new solution to a trust issue
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  No, it didn't. Blockchain technology is perhaps the biggest recent example of a solution in search of a problem. It's interesting but still not clear at all what it would be useful for over what already exists: >"Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain" https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100 https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...
  - root_axis 9y ago
    I agree that it is a solution in search of a problem, but it was able to find a problem, namely, facilitating darkmarket transactions; that's a real use-case that wasn't practical before blockchain tokens. Unfortunately, that use-case does not satisfy the enthusiasts and they have been determined to find some other use-case that has yet to materialize. The closest they've come up with are smart-contracts but those are generally useless as well because a smart-contract is only capable of enforcing rules on a blockchain and nowhere else.
    - majewsky 9y ago
      > [Facilitating darkmarket transactions] that wasn't practical before blockchain tokens. Which is why, as we all remember, the darkmarket suddenly sprung into existence out of nowhere once Bitcoin was invented.
  - idlewords 9y ago
    The blockchain has solved one real-world problem—making ransomware practical.
  - chowells 9y ago
    Huh? It's a trustless timestamping service. That's a thing that some protocols benefit from. Digital notaries, for instance. That surely justifies a valuation around a few cents per bitcoin.
    - acdha 9y ago
      Before assigning a valuation you’d have to ask whether this was better than alternatives. In the case of digital notaries, PKI does the same job except for anonymity and it seems like many people – especially in legal contexts – would value the notaries not being anonymous.
    - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
      Lets say we agree that this timestampting service is trustless (I don't, but for the sake of the argument lets say I do). Care to explain how you go from that to "few cents per bitcoin"? I'm asking for an actual calculation.
      - chowells 9y ago
        You're asking for "an actual calculation" to back up a Fermi estimate of the true value of an irrationally-priced good? Of course there isn't one. It's a Fermi estimate. The main points were that the value is greater than 0 but the use is exceptionally niche. Pick any other Fermi estimate you feel is appropriate for those conditions. It doesn't change my point.
        fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        "Fermi estimate"? You know that Fermi was known for backing up his talk with numbers, right? How can you say that then "surely it's a few cents"?
        chowells 9y ago
        So, you have no disagreement with my actual point?
  - kpdxxx 9y ago
    Hackers are terrible at predicting usefulness / explosive growth of disruptive technologies.
  - oiuyh87yy3 9y ago
    People asked the same about PC's, iPads, and general relativity. But yeah let's continue using OUR view of the world TODAY as the gauge for judging the use of new discoveries and invention. Just because you haven't come up with a reason, or interest enough to just dig in, doesn't mean others haven't. Subjective experience is still a thing, last I checked.
- fwdpropaganda 9y ago
  It really didn't. I much rather trust a big corp properly regulated by my country's government, than who knows who hoarding computers all around the world, plus who knows what devs deciding based who knows what criteria to determine what software is being run on this network. It's mindblowing to me that anyone sees this is a good idea.
dorgo 9y ago
Actually ML started some decades earlier with some hype of it's own and there were not many problems it could solve back then.

alex_duf 9y ago

So did the blockchain Edit: not trying to defend bitcoin here, just pointing that the blockchain brought a new solution to a trust issue

Sangermaine 9y ago
No, it didn't. Blockchain technology is perhaps the biggest recent example of a solution in search of a problem. It's interesting but still not clear at all what it would be useful for over what already exists: >"Ten years in, nobody has come up with a use for blockchain" https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100 https://hackernoon.com/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-...
- root_axis 9y ago
  I agree that it is a solution in search of a problem, but it was able to find a problem, namely, facilitating darkmarket transactions; that's a real use-case that wasn't practical before blockchain tokens. Unfortunately, that use-case does not satisfy the enthusiasts and they have been determined to find some other use-case that has yet to materialize. The closest they've come up with are smart-contracts but those are generally useless as well because a smart-contract is only capable of enforcing rules on a blockchain and nowhere else.
  - majewsky 9y ago
    > [Facilitating darkmarket transactions] that wasn't practical before blockchain tokens. Which is why, as we all remember, the darkmarket suddenly sprung into existence out of nowhere once Bitcoin was invented.
- idlewords 9y ago
  The blockchain has solved one real-world problem—making ransomware practical.
- chowells 9y ago
  Huh? It's a trustless timestamping service. That's a thing that some protocols benefit from. Digital notaries, for instance. That surely justifies a valuation around a few cents per bitcoin.
  - acdha 9y ago
    Before assigning a valuation you’d have to ask whether this was better than alternatives. In the case of digital notaries, PKI does the same job except for anonymity and it seems like many people – especially in legal contexts – would value the notaries not being anonymous.
  - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
    Lets say we agree that this timestampting service is trustless (I don't, but for the sake of the argument lets say I do). Care to explain how you go from that to "few cents per bitcoin"? I'm asking for an actual calculation.
    - chowells 9y ago
      You're asking for "an actual calculation" to back up a Fermi estimate of the true value of an irrationally-priced good? Of course there isn't one. It's a Fermi estimate. The main points were that the value is greater than 0 but the use is exceptionally niche. Pick any other Fermi estimate you feel is appropriate for those conditions. It doesn't change my point.
      - fwdpropaganda 9y ago
        "Fermi estimate"? You know that Fermi was known for backing up his talk with numbers, right? How can you say that then "surely it's a few cents"?
        chowells 9y ago
        So, you have no disagreement with my actual point?
- kpdxxx 9y ago
  Hackers are terrible at predicting usefulness / explosive growth of disruptive technologies.
- oiuyh87yy3 9y ago
  People asked the same about PC's, iPads, and general relativity. But yeah let's continue using OUR view of the world TODAY as the gauge for judging the use of new discoveries and invention. Just because you haven't come up with a reason, or interest enough to just dig in, doesn't mean others haven't. Subjective experience is still a thing, last I checked.
fwdpropaganda 9y ago
It really didn't. I much rather trust a big corp properly regulated by my country's government, than who knows who hoarding computers all around the world, plus who knows what devs deciding based who knows what criteria to determine what software is being run on this network. It's mindblowing to me that anyone sees this is a good idea.

dorgo 9y ago

Actually ML started some decades earlier with some hype of it's own and there were not many problems it could solve back then.