4 ms·
I would not bother if I were you, I've never seen a coverage so negative of blockchains as the one we have on HN. Every week you have a new article looking like
by realusername 9y ago
I would not bother if I were you, I've never seen a coverage so negative of blockchains as the one we have on HN. Every week you have a new article looking like this, full of straw man arguments, never any pro/cons. "You Probably Don't Need a Blockchain", yeah you probably did not need a website in 1999 as well, and web technologies were crap. Cryptocurrencies are completely new field which needs time to mature, basing the potential future of it on current technologies isn't very wise.
I remember the Dropbox post on HN full of people asking why they would need it when they can use USB keys and ftp, I feel cryptocurrencies are clearly underestimated the same way here on HN.
- dcow 9y agoI think HN is responding to the almost hyperbolic proliferation of "blockchain" as some digital panacea and social zeitgeist. It's cool to talk about "crypto" at dinner now. Every time I hear some suave new BTC owner at the table next to mine undressing his two lady friends with technically inaccurate explanations of how crypto currencies work I die a little. But I think you're right. Time will tell. I would love to see more distributed software that empowers participants to grow stake in the digital systems they depend upon. And having well-curated frameworks and working knowledge for operating blockchains will help us grow our digital gardens. The renaissance has only just begun. Patience is a virtue.
- village-idiot 9y agoOf course, cryptocurrencies are not a new field, they're a decade old. In your analogy this would be like looking at the internet in 2009, not 1999.