5 ms·

> and "smart contract" systems like Ethereum seems to still not show any productive output aside from scams and severe bugs in wallets and contracts that lose m

> and "smart contract" systems like Ethereum seems to still not show any productive output aside from scams and severe bugs in wallets and contracts that lose millions of dollars Ethereum is a vibrant, growing ecosystem with many many ambitious projects that have or are nearing release (maker, golem, swarm, bat, you need to do some research because the list is extensive). the above statement is really ridiculous but unfortunately the kind of throw away comment that gets voted to the top of an hn thread. what a sad place this is!

jaredklewis 8y ago
Some of those projects sound very interesting, but potential and actual productive output are very different things. They have potential. But you can't pretend like BAT, for example, is out there revolutionizing the ad industry, because it isn't yet. I can't even find Brave market share numbers, but I am confident they are miles away from even reaching 1%. It has potential, sure, but that's a long way from the real thing. Same for the others. Golem is a nice idea with a lot of potential, but as of right now, Azure, AWS, and GCE are where programmers go for rentable computer power. Maybe one day that place will be golem. Maybe not. Right now it is all just potential. I think part of the parent's point is the potential of crypt-currencies is often touted, but so far little has been shown in actual results. How long until there are actual results?
- cslarson 8y ago
  Sure, if these projects were already blow away successes and completely disrupted their respective markets we wouldn't (hopefully!) be having this conversation. And I agree that skepticism is warranted here but at least with regard to Ethereum it is way overblown here on hn. Even if these projects haven't fully proven themselves yet what I think they do show is the strength and merit of the platform that has made them possible.
hudon 8y ago
I know of these projects and some of my friends are investing and/or building them. I commend the ambition and really hope they one day turn into something great. That's beside the point, though. Knowing that Ethereum and Bitcoin consume more energy than Iceland and Switzerland respectively, why don't we turn them off until they're providing actual use? I get that markets need time to figure out if a product is useful and useless things get built all the time, but has that discovery process ever been done at this scale before? For instance, if proof-of-work ends up spending as much electricity as the United States and we still can't use it for anything meaningful, shouldn't we be concerned? I know "turn them off" sounds silly, but you can tax the miners or impose energy consumption caps until there is a smart contract out there that is arguably benefiting society. If concern for humanity's wellbeing on this earth is a "throw away" concern to you, then maybe you can provide an argument for why everything's going to be OK? Have we fixed global warming and I just didn't get the memo?
- needz 8y ago
  Ethereum does have plans to switch to 'proof of stake' (as opposed to its current 'proof of work') which would dramatically decrease the power consumption.

jaredklewis 8y ago

Some of those projects sound very interesting, but potential and actual productive output are very different things. They have potential. But you can't pretend like BAT, for example, is out there revolutionizing the ad industry, because it isn't yet. I can't even find Brave market share numbers, but I am confident they are miles away from even reaching 1%. It has potential, sure, but that's a long way from the real thing. Same for the others. Golem is a nice idea with a lot of potential, but as of right now, Azure, AWS, and GCE are where programmers go for rentable computer power. Maybe one day that place will be golem. Maybe not. Right now it is all just potential. I think part of the parent's point is the potential of crypt-currencies is often touted, but so far little has been shown in actual results. How long until there are actual results?

cslarson 8y ago
Sure, if these projects were already blow away successes and completely disrupted their respective markets we wouldn't (hopefully!) be having this conversation. And I agree that skepticism is warranted here but at least with regard to Ethereum it is way overblown here on hn. Even if these projects haven't fully proven themselves yet what I think they do show is the strength and merit of the platform that has made them possible.

hudon 8y ago

I know of these projects and some of my friends are investing and/or building them. I commend the ambition and really hope they one day turn into something great. That's beside the point, though. Knowing that Ethereum and Bitcoin consume more energy than Iceland and Switzerland respectively, why don't we turn them off until they're providing actual use? I get that markets need time to figure out if a product is useful and useless things get built all the time, but has that discovery process ever been done at this scale before? For instance, if proof-of-work ends up spending as much electricity as the United States and we still can't use it for anything meaningful, shouldn't we be concerned? I know "turn them off" sounds silly, but you can tax the miners or impose energy consumption caps until there is a smart contract out there that is arguably benefiting society. If concern for humanity's wellbeing on this earth is a "throw away" concern to you, then maybe you can provide an argument for why everything's going to be OK? Have we fixed global warming and I just didn't get the memo?

needz 8y ago
Ethereum does have plans to switch to 'proof of stake' (as opposed to its current 'proof of work') which would dramatically decrease the power consumption.