5 ms·

One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunti

by kaolti 9y ago

One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunting for arguments why something will never work , is not only terribly boring, but IMO the most counterproductive way to look at anything.

maneesh 9y ago
Thank you for saying this. I always try to find the words but you said it eloquently.
bhouston 9y ago
> One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That does not seem to be a truism on the face of it. Some things change and some things stay the same. New or old is not clearly a winner, the world is more complex than that.
- gethesmane 9y ago
  That does not seem to be a truism on the face of it. Agreed. It's actually quite empty, on the face of it.
- ChristianGeek 9y ago
  If you don’t at least have a grip on the past, you’re destined to repeat its mistakes.
toomuchtodo 9y ago
> That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunting for arguments why something will never work , is not only terribly boring, but IMO the most counterproductive way to look at anything. I don't believe this is the same as discrediting solutions looking for problems. Blockchain proponents desire a technical fix to people problems. That is untenable, as people will always override software, whether that's through a courtroom, a government/regulatory body, or a fork based on majority consensus.
- moccachino 9y ago
  Ah, but that is only temporary. The ultimate technical fix to people problems will eventually prevail, making you all obsolete. Erm, I mean us all, us humans, all of us human people of which I totally am one.
- zodiac 9y ago
  > That is untenable, as people will always override software, whether that's through a courtroom, a government/regulatory body, or a fork based on majority consensus. I would say every single non-naive person in this space realises this, so it's not true that blockchain proponents "desire a technical fix to social problems" in that sense. What smart contracts for eg could be good for is to leverage social consensus much more highly, rather than replace it (since like you said replacement is impossible)
lornemalvo 9y ago
What is your argument? All you are doing is starting an ad hominem attack against the author hy trying to position him as a defender of the pasr.
sp527 9y ago
That's easy to say if you have nothing to lose. Most people investing (time and/or money) in crypto have a lot to lose. What you're saying is also just plainly logically unsound. If we tried to explore every possibility, irrespective of its potential, humanity would be nowhere. "Hunting for arguments why something will never work" is one of the finest anti-insanity protocols we have at our disposal.
wglb 9y ago
So what real-world problem does it solve? For example, can you address point 8 of this stream? https://twitter.com/timbray/status/963115533825527808 https://twitter.com/timbray/status/963115533825527808
Flozzin 9y ago
Yes. We saw the same thing with 3D tv's. People tried to cling to their old 2D sets and clearly the new technology won out. /sarcasm
- spookthesunset 9y ago
  We just bought a new TV and it was rather amusing that not a single model advertised it being "3D". Not on the box, not in the software. Nowhere. I'm not even sure the new 4K TV we bought supports 3D.... Last TV we bought years ago.... everything was 3D this, 3D that...
danmaz74 9y ago
> if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end "In the end" isn't necessarily interesting. In the end, we're all dead anyway :)
asfgionio 9y ago
I'm not protecting the status quo. I just want breathable air. Cryptocurrencies are an environmental disaster. We should go out of our way to destroy them.
cortesoft 9y ago
This is a clear example of survivor bias; there have been plenty of things that people thought were the future that turned out to be false, and the people who ‘hung on to the past’ and didn’t adopt those things won out in the end. Betamax, 3D TVs, laserdiscs, segways, new coke, etc.
- slededit 9y ago
  Cryptocoins appear to have drastically more adoption than any of those.
  - coldtea 9y ago
    Pet rocks did too at one time...
  - kaistinchcombe 9y ago
    Depends on how you define "adoption" doesn't it?
  - tCfD 9y ago
    Their adoption comes as a consequence of their temporarily uncensorable ability to facilitate open speculation and gambling, so the adoption curve is merely following the well worn grooves laid by ancient vices.
  - bwoodring 9y ago
    Don't kid yourself, the number of people who own cryptocurrency is vanishingly small, and the number of people who own cryptocurrency for any other reason than a get-rich-quick scheme is microscopic.
- wolco 9y ago
  Many of those items changed forms and exist today. If this was 10 years ago you can add 3d printing or solar panels. Some technologies take time to develop.
bwoodring 9y ago
That's pithy, but there's no particular reason to believe it is true. You may find futurism amusing, but the future is not guaranteed to be better unless we make good decisions. The fact that something is futuristic does not make it inherently better, and believing that is does is just the mirror version of traditionalism. There is ample evidence that stable, predictable institutions are the main driver of improved quality of life in the west. The libertarian instinct to tear down these institutions instead of putting in the hard work to make sure they are well run is counterproductive.
- mr_spothawk 9y ago
  > The libertarian instinct to tear down these institutions... ... is predicated on the long-carried memory of institutions like these failing under the duress of locked-in, privileged, out-of-touch bad-decision makers in positions of power fucking it up for the rest of us. > instead of putting in the hard work in my view, "hard work" is the work of building fair, equal-access solutions in an open space, instead of building more walls to facilitate Government Guidance of systems that governments have historically mismanaged.
coldtea 9y ago
>One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. Well, people chasing after the latest fad lose much faster...
Florin_Andrei 9y ago
Money will continue on the path of virtualization and unversalization. It was cows and jugs of honey at first. Then it was seashells. Then it was gold. Then it was printed paper. Then it was records in a database, but living isolated as local records. It will become even more abstract and even more open, eventually. Whether that's the blockchain or something else, remains to be seen.
- bwoodring 9y ago
  Putting money on a blockchain is not inherently more abstract than keeping it in a bank's database.
jcranmer 9y ago
Even if that statement is true, that does not imply that the inverse is true--just because you're not hanging onto the past doesn't mean you won't always lose in the end.

by kaolti 9y ago

maneesh 9y ago

Thank you for saying this. I always try to find the words but you said it eloquently.

bhouston 9y ago

> One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That does not seem to be a truism on the face of it. Some things change and some things stay the same. New or old is not clearly a winner, the world is more complex than that.

gethesmane 9y ago
That does not seem to be a truism on the face of it. Agreed. It's actually quite empty, on the face of it.
ChristianGeek 9y ago
If you don’t at least have a grip on the past, you’re destined to repeat its mistakes.

toomuchtodo 9y ago

> That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunting for arguments why something will never work , is not only terribly boring, but IMO the most counterproductive way to look at anything. I don't believe this is the same as discrediting solutions looking for problems. Blockchain proponents desire a technical fix to people problems. That is untenable, as people will always override software, whether that's through a courtroom, a government/regulatory body, or a fork based on majority consensus.

moccachino 9y ago
Ah, but that is only temporary. The ultimate technical fix to people problems will eventually prevail, making you all obsolete. Erm, I mean us all, us humans, all of us human people of which I totally am one.
zodiac 9y ago
> That is untenable, as people will always override software, whether that's through a courtroom, a government/regulatory body, or a fork based on majority consensus. I would say every single non-naive person in this space realises this, so it's not true that blockchain proponents "desire a technical fix to social problems" in that sense. What smart contracts for eg could be good for is to leverage social consensus much more highly, rather than replace it (since like you said replacement is impossible)

lornemalvo 9y ago

What is your argument? All you are doing is starting an ad hominem attack against the author hy trying to position him as a defender of the pasr.

sp527 9y ago

That's easy to say if you have nothing to lose. Most people investing (time and/or money) in crypto have a lot to lose. What you're saying is also just plainly logically unsound. If we tried to explore every possibility, irrespective of its potential, humanity would be nowhere. "Hunting for arguments why something will never work" is one of the finest anti-insanity protocols we have at our disposal.

wglb 9y ago

So what real-world problem does it solve? For example, can you address point 8 of this stream? https://twitter.com/timbray/status/963115533825527808 https://twitter.com/timbray/status/963115533825527808

Flozzin 9y ago

Yes. We saw the same thing with 3D tv's. People tried to cling to their old 2D sets and clearly the new technology won out. /sarcasm

spookthesunset 9y ago
We just bought a new TV and it was rather amusing that not a single model advertised it being "3D". Not on the box, not in the software. Nowhere. I'm not even sure the new 4K TV we bought supports 3D.... Last TV we bought years ago.... everything was 3D this, 3D that...

danmaz74 9y ago

> if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end "In the end" isn't necessarily interesting. In the end, we're all dead anyway :)

asfgionio 9y ago

I'm not protecting the status quo. I just want breathable air. Cryptocurrencies are an environmental disaster. We should go out of our way to destroy them.

cortesoft 9y ago

This is a clear example of survivor bias; there have been plenty of things that people thought were the future that turned out to be false, and the people who ‘hung on to the past’ and didn’t adopt those things won out in the end. Betamax, 3D TVs, laserdiscs, segways, new coke, etc.

slededit 9y ago
Cryptocoins appear to have drastically more adoption than any of those.
- coldtea 9y ago
  Pet rocks did too at one time...
- kaistinchcombe 9y ago
  Depends on how you define "adoption" doesn't it?
- tCfD 9y ago
  Their adoption comes as a consequence of their temporarily uncensorable ability to facilitate open speculation and gambling, so the adoption curve is merely following the well worn grooves laid by ancient vices.
- bwoodring 9y ago
  Don't kid yourself, the number of people who own cryptocurrency is vanishingly small, and the number of people who own cryptocurrency for any other reason than a get-rich-quick scheme is microscopic.
wolco 9y ago
Many of those items changed forms and exist today. If this was 10 years ago you can add 3d printing or solar panels. Some technologies take time to develop.

bwoodring 9y ago

That's pithy, but there's no particular reason to believe it is true. You may find futurism amusing, but the future is not guaranteed to be better unless we make good decisions. The fact that something is futuristic does not make it inherently better, and believing that is does is just the mirror version of traditionalism. There is ample evidence that stable, predictable institutions are the main driver of improved quality of life in the west. The libertarian instinct to tear down these institutions instead of putting in the hard work to make sure they are well run is counterproductive.

mr_spothawk 9y ago
> The libertarian instinct to tear down these institutions... ... is predicated on the long-carried memory of institutions like these failing under the duress of locked-in, privileged, out-of-touch bad-decision makers in positions of power fucking it up for the rest of us. > instead of putting in the hard work in my view, "hard work" is the work of building fair, equal-access solutions in an open space, instead of building more walls to facilitate Government Guidance of systems that governments have historically mismanaged.

coldtea 9y ago

>One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. Well, people chasing after the latest fad lose much faster...

Florin_Andrei 9y ago

Money will continue on the path of virtualization and unversalization. It was cows and jugs of honey at first. Then it was seashells. Then it was gold. Then it was printed paper. Then it was records in a database, but living isolated as local records. It will become even more abstract and even more open, eventually. Whether that's the blockchain or something else, remains to be seen.

bwoodring 9y ago
Putting money on a blockchain is not inherently more abstract than keeping it in a bank's database.

jcranmer 9y ago

Even if that statement is true, that does not imply that the inverse is true--just because you're not hanging onto the past doesn't mean you won't always lose in the end.