9 ms·

The danger in a space like this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. - Yes, there are an insane amount of scams, and lots of dumb money flowing in -

by nemild 9y ago

The danger in a space like this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. - Yes, there are an insane amount of scams, and lots of dumb money flowing in - Yes, many use cases of blockchains should really be databases - Yes, many blockchain job posts are just PR initiatives for companies who want to differentiate themselves That said, it's an early time to have a tremendous amount of impact. Don't like "proof of work"? Go hack on various other implementations. Get angry at banks? Go figure out ways to remove custodial risk, so that we may not need as onerous financial regulations that stifle innovation. Angry about security in this space? Go find security holes and disclose them. Even for fun side hacks, there's a huge app layer that could be built on your smart contract blockchain of choice. I say this having worked at the World Bank, Gates Foundation, and a mobile payments startup in India: financial services could truly use innovation, and providing safe, secure, broad access can have huge impact, especially in countries with weak legal systems. Blockchains are a "shot on goal" of trying this, though they may also never live up to the hype. I'm all for calling bullshit on hyped trends ( https://www.nemil.com/musings/shinyandnew.html https://www.nemil.com/musings/shinyandnew.html ), but just because a space attracts snake oil salesmen, "get rich quick" schemers, and cargo culting programmers doesn't mean that there might not still be great opportunities to do good engineering and have huge impact.

Alex3917 9y ago
> Go figure out ways to remove custodial risk, so that we may not need as onerous financial regulations that stifle innovation. FWIW, this is the best video I've seen on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dla42bY7k90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dla42bY7k90
aaron-lebo 9y ago
There's a surprising amount of information out there in regards to how blockchains work and how to build them, especially compared to 2013-2014 ish. They are not dark arts, there's lots of low-hanging fruit which doesn't require working for a company that you disagree with in principle (and to be fair, there's not many blockchain companies that seem to have many principles other than cha-ching).
ChrisLomont 9y ago
>Get angry at banks? I've found in many fields that are as complex as finance, that when I think something in that field is stupid, unnecessary, or onerous, it is I that am wrong because I simply didn't understand the why of how that thing came about. So I find it fascinating how many people/groups in history have gotten mad at banks/finance, tried to make a "better" product, gotten stung or robbed others, only to eventually re-invent many of the things safe, efficient banking requires. >I'm all for calling bullshit on hyped trends ... doesn't mean that there might not still be great opportunities to do good engineering and have huge impact The problem is that as a field gets flooded with bullshit and scams, smart money (and people) turn their talents to other areas the world can be improved, avoiding the crap.
- simonbyrne 9y ago
  see Chesterton's fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
- kbenson 9y ago
  I've found this to be the case in most things, even not as complex as financial services, if you look close enough. Sometimes what you're seeing is a local maxima, where there's a rough period required to get to a better state that nobody is ready to take quite yet, and other times it's just that complexity is much more common that we like to think. The obvious example is dumb laws. Almost every dumb law has at least some good effect it imparts, which is why it was put in place. Unfortunately the problems it causes are what is usually trotted out to explain why it's dumb and should be changed or removed, giving little or no credit to the problems it actually prevents (or disincentivizes at least).
- mikestew 9y ago
  I've found in many fields that are as complex as finance, that when I think something in that field is stupid, unnecessary, or onerous, it is I that am wrong because I simply didn't understand the why of how that thing came about. Someone else has already brought up Chesterton's Fence, but long before I heard about the fence of Mr. Chesterton, I learned that every warning sticker on your ladder, every regulation you despise, every "Don't Do $ACTION on the $THING" sign you see has a story behind it. Because few people enjoy researching and purchasing signs and stickers so much that they'll do it unprompted. So, yeah, as you've discovered, when you hear talk about getting rid of Frank-Dodd or other dual-name regulations, ask yourself who benefits from that and why we had to write down some rules in the first place. IOW, Chesterton's Fence. :-)
Sangermaine 9y ago
>Go figure out ways to remove custodial risk, so that we may not need as onerous financial regulations that stifle innovation. Demonstrating the value of, and rationale for, those "onerous financial regulations" has been the one actual good result of this blockchain nonsense. The endless tsunami of scams and fraud that has been the blockchain space has been useful in wiping away the original idiot libertarian impulses that drove the scene.
- jstanley 9y ago
  Libertarian idiot here: no, it hasn't.
  - dpc_pw 9y ago
    But, but ... "the children", "the poor". Someone has to protect us from all these blockchains, stealing our money!
- SamPatt 9y ago
  The idiot libertarians are the only people actually using cryptocurrencies for anything other than speculation.
  - darpa_escapee 9y ago
    Not everyone who buys drugs or launders money are libertarians.
- zkms 9y ago
  > Demonstrating the value of, and rationale for, those "onerous financial regulations" has been the one actual good result of this blockchain nonsense. It's also helped demonstrate that plenty of financial regulations have nothing to do with preventing scams and fraud and everything to do with deputising the financial system to act as a law-enforcement body that goes after violations of awful laws such as drug prohibition.
enknamel 9y ago
I really dislike how decentralized cryptocurrencies are. I'd be ok with how it is currently implemented as long as there was some level of central governance to guarantee the currency could continue forever. What's the point of mining bitcoin once all coins are allocated? Just for transaction fees? Or would people push to generate more coins? A central governing authority would be great in a situation like this. Right now it is all open and built on consensus which is open to attack.
- Zpalmtree 9y ago
  The whole point of cryptocurrencies is that they're decentralized, and can't be controlled by governments. That would defeat the whole point of blockchain surely?
  - JonnyNova 9y ago
    Not necessarily. Lack of centralized trust is just one feature. They have other features like public (but anonymous) ledgers, irreversible transactions, smart contracts, the ability to hold them without a bank account. Features like those could definitely come from a private or central bank.
    - nk1tz 9y ago
      If they were centralized they would most definitely have reversible transactions, and probably NOT be anonymous.
      - enknamel 9y ago
        Not necessarily. Right now cash is anonymous. It changes hands without any record. It has no provenance. And is a centralized currency. There was a joke at the top of the crypto reddit a few days ago about how cash is just more convenient than bitcoin for ordering a pizza. It doesn't have to be government but I would like to see a trusted owner actually own the governance of a crypto currency. Right now it is way too wild west to instill a lot of confidence. Which is great way to make a lot of money quickly. But over the long term I can see a lot of issues coming up.
mstade 9y ago
> Get angry at banks? My response to anyone serious about competing with banks: go work for one. Banks are often portrayed as these evil faceless entities that act completely in their self interest. In reality, most banks that matter are simply too large to act as one – and not in the sense that they are too big to fail (although, that's probably true as well) but that they are huge organizations with thousands upon thousands of employees and teams of varying autonomy. They may be all under one brand (and likely also under many sub-brands) but they don't act as one, pretty much ever. Banks are very interesting organizations to work for, for a great many reasons. I think anyone with a serious grudge against banks thinking they can do better should spend at least a few years working for one. If nothing else, they'll learn first hand what to try and avoid, and possibly also why things are so ass-backwards a lot of the time.
- toddmatthews 9y ago
  Wells Fargo - multiple systematic fraudulent issues in the past few years https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wells-fargo-accused-of-forcing-mortgage-applicants-to-pay-unwarranted-fees/2017/09/05/2ed18eaa-925a-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.73b6151f0393 https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wells-fargo-accuse...
  - AJ007 9y ago
    Sales issues, which any organization can and will have if they don’t very closely monitor what their sales people are promising and doing. Being a bank is not the red flag characteristic here.
- staunch 9y ago
  If you want to spend your time on earth helping to destroy the lives of poor people, work at a bank like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. They've got evil corruption down to a science. > A 2014 CFPB study showed that about 8 percent of bank customers pay about 75 percent of all overdraft fees. And much of the time, the purchases that trigger overdraft fees are minor. The median debit card transaction that ends in an overdraft fee is $24, according to the bureau. > Overdraft fees began piling up in Davis Clark’s Wells Fargo account after he lost his job in February. The 26-year-old fell behind on bills, including about $9,000 in short-term loans he had taken out to help cover his living expenses. Each time the lenders tried to automatically withdraw payment from his checking account — his monthly payments added up to about $550 — he was hit with a $35 charge from his bank for not having sufficient funds. By the time Clark started a new job as a data analyst less than two months later, his checking account was negative by more than $1,400. The debt that ate up more than half of his first paycheck and made it more difficult for him to catch up on the rent and other bills. Last week, Clark opened up a second checking account with another bank so that he could avoid having his earnings eaten by overdraft fees. But with the charges continuing to pile up on his first account, he worries he will have little choice but to file for bankruptcy to clear the loans and overdraft fees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/06/13/wall-street-is-making-big-bucks-from-overdraft-fees-again/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/06/13/... If you want to help people, empower your fellow humans with new technology that renders these truly evil megacorps obsolete.
drak0n1c 9y ago
There are upcoming Distributed Ledgers that don't use blockchains or mining - like Hashgraph which uses a form of gossip protocol to handle more than 300k transactions/second. These distributed ledgers may soon handle traffic that currently requires centralized servers (MMORPG games, etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwYU1Zr9Tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwYU1Zr9Tg
- solotronics 9y ago
  is there an actual product or implemention of any of these? I can't seem to find any examples actually in the wild. Has any of that even been mathematically proven? It's easy to prove hashing and the block chain.
draw_down 9y ago
Or, just don't work in this space, and do something else. It's fine to reject job offers. It's OK to work on what you want.
wyager 9y ago
> Don't like "proof of work"? Go hack on various other implementations. If this strikes you as reasonable advice or as a reasonable way to think about cryptosystems, it is probably best if you don’t attempt to work on blockchain tech.
- xrd 9y ago
  I'm genuinely curious about why you say that. Isn't proof of work proving itself to be a bad way to guarantee trust? Aren't the alternatives worth working on? Does that statement belie a fundamental misunderstanding of blockchain somehow (if so, I'd really like to understand why)?
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    AFAIK it has not been formally proven yet, but the general consensus I see among crypto fans is that you can't achieve the goals of decentralized, trustless currency without involving some kind of huge energy waste somewhere. (It's saddening me that people think this is a feature.)
    - bduerst 9y ago
      There is one alternative: https://youtu.be/l2bU_tOREos?t=2m13s https://youtu.be/l2bU_tOREos?t=2m13s
hartator 9y ago
> That said, it's an early time to have a tremendous amount of impact. It seems easy to forget that early actors of Bitcoin are either in jail or hiding. Why do you think this generation of actors will have a different fate?
pvg 9y ago
This sounds a bit like... if there’s no baby in the bathwater, don’t just throw it away - go ahead and put a baby in!

by nemild 9y ago

Alex3917 9y ago

> Go figure out ways to remove custodial risk, so that we may not need as onerous financial regulations that stifle innovation. FWIW, this is the best video I've seen on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dla42bY7k90 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dla42bY7k90

aaron-lebo 9y ago

There's a surprising amount of information out there in regards to how blockchains work and how to build them, especially compared to 2013-2014 ish. They are not dark arts, there's lots of low-hanging fruit which doesn't require working for a company that you disagree with in principle (and to be fair, there's not many blockchain companies that seem to have many principles other than cha-ching).

ChrisLomont 9y ago

>Get angry at banks? I've found in many fields that are as complex as finance, that when I think something in that field is stupid, unnecessary, or onerous, it is I that am wrong because I simply didn't understand the why of how that thing came about. So I find it fascinating how many people/groups in history have gotten mad at banks/finance, tried to make a "better" product, gotten stung or robbed others, only to eventually re-invent many of the things safe, efficient banking requires. >I'm all for calling bullshit on hyped trends ... doesn't mean that there might not still be great opportunities to do good engineering and have huge impact The problem is that as a field gets flooded with bullshit and scams, smart money (and people) turn their talents to other areas the world can be improved, avoiding the crap.

simonbyrne 9y ago
see Chesterton's fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27s_fence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._K._Chesterton#Chesterton.27...
kbenson 9y ago
I've found this to be the case in most things, even not as complex as financial services, if you look close enough. Sometimes what you're seeing is a local maxima, where there's a rough period required to get to a better state that nobody is ready to take quite yet, and other times it's just that complexity is much more common that we like to think. The obvious example is dumb laws. Almost every dumb law has at least some good effect it imparts, which is why it was put in place. Unfortunately the problems it causes are what is usually trotted out to explain why it's dumb and should be changed or removed, giving little or no credit to the problems it actually prevents (or disincentivizes at least).
mikestew 9y ago
I've found in many fields that are as complex as finance, that when I think something in that field is stupid, unnecessary, or onerous, it is I that am wrong because I simply didn't understand the why of how that thing came about. Someone else has already brought up Chesterton's Fence, but long before I heard about the fence of Mr. Chesterton, I learned that every warning sticker on your ladder, every regulation you despise, every "Don't Do $ACTION on the $THING" sign you see has a story behind it. Because few people enjoy researching and purchasing signs and stickers so much that they'll do it unprompted. So, yeah, as you've discovered, when you hear talk about getting rid of Frank-Dodd or other dual-name regulations, ask yourself who benefits from that and why we had to write down some rules in the first place. IOW, Chesterton's Fence. :-)

Sangermaine 9y ago

>Go figure out ways to remove custodial risk, so that we may not need as onerous financial regulations that stifle innovation. Demonstrating the value of, and rationale for, those "onerous financial regulations" has been the one actual good result of this blockchain nonsense. The endless tsunami of scams and fraud that has been the blockchain space has been useful in wiping away the original idiot libertarian impulses that drove the scene.

jstanley 9y ago
Libertarian idiot here: no, it hasn't.
- dpc_pw 9y ago
  But, but ... "the children", "the poor". Someone has to protect us from all these blockchains, stealing our money!
SamPatt 9y ago
The idiot libertarians are the only people actually using cryptocurrencies for anything other than speculation.
- darpa_escapee 9y ago
  Not everyone who buys drugs or launders money are libertarians.
zkms 9y ago
> Demonstrating the value of, and rationale for, those "onerous financial regulations" has been the one actual good result of this blockchain nonsense. It's also helped demonstrate that plenty of financial regulations have nothing to do with preventing scams and fraud and everything to do with deputising the financial system to act as a law-enforcement body that goes after violations of awful laws such as drug prohibition.

enknamel 9y ago

I really dislike how decentralized cryptocurrencies are. I'd be ok with how it is currently implemented as long as there was some level of central governance to guarantee the currency could continue forever. What's the point of mining bitcoin once all coins are allocated? Just for transaction fees? Or would people push to generate more coins? A central governing authority would be great in a situation like this. Right now it is all open and built on consensus which is open to attack.

Zpalmtree 9y ago
The whole point of cryptocurrencies is that they're decentralized, and can't be controlled by governments. That would defeat the whole point of blockchain surely?
- JonnyNova 9y ago
  Not necessarily. Lack of centralized trust is just one feature. They have other features like public (but anonymous) ledgers, irreversible transactions, smart contracts, the ability to hold them without a bank account. Features like those could definitely come from a private or central bank.
  - nk1tz 9y ago
    If they were centralized they would most definitely have reversible transactions, and probably NOT be anonymous.
    - enknamel 9y ago
      Not necessarily. Right now cash is anonymous. It changes hands without any record. It has no provenance. And is a centralized currency. There was a joke at the top of the crypto reddit a few days ago about how cash is just more convenient than bitcoin for ordering a pizza. It doesn't have to be government but I would like to see a trusted owner actually own the governance of a crypto currency. Right now it is way too wild west to instill a lot of confidence. Which is great way to make a lot of money quickly. But over the long term I can see a lot of issues coming up.

mstade 9y ago

> Get angry at banks? My response to anyone serious about competing with banks: go work for one. Banks are often portrayed as these evil faceless entities that act completely in their self interest. In reality, most banks that matter are simply too large to act as one – and not in the sense that they are too big to fail (although, that's probably true as well) but that they are huge organizations with thousands upon thousands of employees and teams of varying autonomy. They may be all under one brand (and likely also under many sub-brands) but they don't act as one, pretty much ever. Banks are very interesting organizations to work for, for a great many reasons. I think anyone with a serious grudge against banks thinking they can do better should spend at least a few years working for one. If nothing else, they'll learn first hand what to try and avoid, and possibly also why things are so ass-backwards a lot of the time.

toddmatthews 9y ago
Wells Fargo - multiple systematic fraudulent issues in the past few years https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wells-fargo-accused-of-forcing-mortgage-applicants-to-pay-unwarranted-fees/2017/09/05/2ed18eaa-925a-11e7-8754-d478688d23b4_story.html?utm_term=.73b6151f0393 https://www.washingtonpost.com/realestate/wells-fargo-accuse...
- AJ007 9y ago
  Sales issues, which any organization can and will have if they don’t very closely monitor what their sales people are promising and doing. Being a bank is not the red flag characteristic here.
staunch 9y ago
If you want to spend your time on earth helping to destroy the lives of poor people, work at a bank like Bank of America or Wells Fargo. They've got evil corruption down to a science. > A 2014 CFPB study showed that about 8 percent of bank customers pay about 75 percent of all overdraft fees. And much of the time, the purchases that trigger overdraft fees are minor. The median debit card transaction that ends in an overdraft fee is $24, according to the bureau. > Overdraft fees began piling up in Davis Clark’s Wells Fargo account after he lost his job in February. The 26-year-old fell behind on bills, including about $9,000 in short-term loans he had taken out to help cover his living expenses. Each time the lenders tried to automatically withdraw payment from his checking account — his monthly payments added up to about $550 — he was hit with a $35 charge from his bank for not having sufficient funds. By the time Clark started a new job as a data analyst less than two months later, his checking account was negative by more than $1,400. The debt that ate up more than half of his first paycheck and made it more difficult for him to catch up on the rent and other bills. Last week, Clark opened up a second checking account with another bank so that he could avoid having his earnings eaten by overdraft fees. But with the charges continuing to pile up on his first account, he worries he will have little choice but to file for bankruptcy to clear the loans and overdraft fees. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/06/13/wall-street-is-making-big-bucks-from-overdraft-fees-again/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2016/06/13/... If you want to help people, empower your fellow humans with new technology that renders these truly evil megacorps obsolete.

drak0n1c 9y ago

There are upcoming Distributed Ledgers that don't use blockchains or mining - like Hashgraph which uses a form of gossip protocol to handle more than 300k transactions/second. These distributed ledgers may soon handle traffic that currently requires centralized servers (MMORPG games, etc). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwYU1Zr9Tg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgwYU1Zr9Tg

solotronics 9y ago
is there an actual product or implemention of any of these? I can't seem to find any examples actually in the wild. Has any of that even been mathematically proven? It's easy to prove hashing and the block chain.

draw_down 9y ago

Or, just don't work in this space, and do something else. It's fine to reject job offers. It's OK to work on what you want.

wyager 9y ago

> Don't like "proof of work"? Go hack on various other implementations. If this strikes you as reasonable advice or as a reasonable way to think about cryptosystems, it is probably best if you don’t attempt to work on blockchain tech.

xrd 9y ago
I'm genuinely curious about why you say that. Isn't proof of work proving itself to be a bad way to guarantee trust? Aren't the alternatives worth working on? Does that statement belie a fundamental misunderstanding of blockchain somehow (if so, I'd really like to understand why)?
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  AFAIK it has not been formally proven yet, but the general consensus I see among crypto fans is that you can't achieve the goals of decentralized, trustless currency without involving some kind of huge energy waste somewhere. (It's saddening me that people think this is a feature.)
  - bduerst 9y ago
    There is one alternative: https://youtu.be/l2bU_tOREos?t=2m13s https://youtu.be/l2bU_tOREos?t=2m13s

hartator 9y ago

> That said, it's an early time to have a tremendous amount of impact. It seems easy to forget that early actors of Bitcoin are either in jail or hiding. Why do you think this generation of actors will have a different fate?

pvg 9y ago

This sounds a bit like... if there’s no baby in the bathwater, don’t just throw it away - go ahead and put a baby in!