7 ms·

> the usual “blockchain is 110% useless” Are there any projects that you consider to be a success that currently use a distributed blockchain? I suspect like

> the usual “blockchain is 110% useless” Are there any projects that you consider to be a success that currently use a distributed blockchain? I suspect like most people my skepticism comes not from the inherent technology but in all actual deployments so far. A system that solves scaling, doesn’t appear to be a questionable pyramid scheme, and had even a few of the advantages of the existing financial system would be welcomed.

gpm 8y ago
> Are there any projects that you consider to be a success that currently use a distributed blockchain? Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" (edit: I should be clear that I'm primarily referring to market value and making money for those involved with this one)? It's morally ambiguous at best, but what about "dark net markets"? Or if we just don't worry about morality, "cryptolockers"? Of course the latter two are really just consequences of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currency. The fact that bitcoin enabled them perhaps says more about the state of the rest of the world than bitcoin itself.
- jazzyjackson 8y ago
  Not the OP but giving cartels an anonymous payment channel doesn't sing 'success' to me, personally. Like I guess they found a niche market. Maybe it will be a success in a post-national world where banks and sovereign debts aren't able to serve our needs, but until then it all feels like LARPing to me.
  - firethief 8y ago
    Cartels already have anonymous payment channels, which Bitcoin is not.
  - arsenico 8y ago
    > giving cartels an anonymous payment channel Bitcoin is not anonymous, this is a big misconception. It is pseudonymous at best. US dollars are anonymous.
- peteretep 8y ago
  > Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" For me, the jury is still out, cf tulip bubble. > of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currency I'd object to that on the basis that most crypto-currencies have a public ledger, and I believe deanonymization is already somewhat effective and also only just in its infancy. I would not want to have committed anything to the blockchain that I wasn't happy for the world to know. I believe this is solvable in future innovations, but appears to be far from widely deployed. The linked post appears to be a possible solution. Also I think the whole tainted coins concept, where a government marks transactions emanating from a wallet, and all linked transactions after that, is going to be a much much bigger deal than people think. It seems very unlikely to me that companies like Coinbase won't have to maintain a blacklist at some point in the future if they want to stay on the good side of regulators, which will lead to all sorts of turbulent effects.
- wpietri 8y ago
  I would probably object to Bitcoin counting. Its original notion was "peer-to-peer electronic cash". As best I can tell, there's almost no significant legal use beyond speculation. [1] Even prominent Bitcoin advocates have admitted it isn't a good currency. [2] Illegal use is self-limiting; if Bitcoin becomes mainly known as the crime currency, it'll be truly screwed, as governments everywhere will further crack down on conversion and use, driving off investors, developers, business partners, etc. I think it's especially obvious how much it's failed as e-cash when you compare it with M-Pesa, an African e-money system. [3] It started just a year before Bitcoin, but does something like 100x the transaction volume and is wildly popular in a number of countries. [1] E.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/nyregion/new-york-today-living-on-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/nyregion/new-york-today-l... [2] E.g., https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa
  - arisAlexis 8y ago
    Bitcoin is the most transparent form of money invented and in circulation. That's why a number of studies you can find online place criminal activity quite low. Who wants a trackable currency vs dollars?
    - chx 8y ago
      It's a very interesting thing to call it "money". It's ... not. Not unless you want to call every scarce good money. This has bene rehearsed many a time over the years. It's too volatile but be usable as a unit of account, it's not backed by a nation state and it can't be used to create credit. These are all important functions of money and Bitcoin has none of it. And no, it's not a Ponzi scheme either, it's a new kind of scam: https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/
      - arisAlexis 8y ago
        not being controlled by any government and not being able to create it out of thin air for credit is a feature not a bug. but if you are calling bitcoin scam in 2019 I don't think we can have a rational argument.
willio58 8y ago
Aaand there it is. I do agree that the skepticism of blockchain projects is not unwarranted given the extreme bubble that occurred and the lack of actual use in the industry, but I do agree with the previous comment that it’s a nice change to be able to talk about this stuff without so much negativity. I haven’t made any money from blockchains, but they are still super interesting from an implementation perspective.
- peteretep 8y ago
  > Aaand there it is ... so much negativity. If reasoned skepticism in response to a comment inviting skepticism strikes you as negativity, your fervor sounds religious.
  - billions 8y ago
    Personal attacks are not contributions here
    - peteretep 8y ago
      Saying that someone's argument doesn't seem to be well-rooted is far from a personal attack.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Ihfhcub 8y ago
The only answer is bitcoin. The rest are scams highjacking the technology to sell pseudoscience and vaporware. See Ethereum

gpm 8y ago

> Are there any projects that you consider to be a success that currently use a distributed blockchain? Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" (edit: I should be clear that I'm primarily referring to market value and making money for those involved with this one)? It's morally ambiguous at best, but what about "dark net markets"? Or if we just don't worry about morality, "cryptolockers"? Of course the latter two are really just consequences of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currency. The fact that bitcoin enabled them perhaps says more about the state of the rest of the world than bitcoin itself.

jazzyjackson 8y ago
Not the OP but giving cartels an anonymous payment channel doesn't sing 'success' to me, personally. Like I guess they found a niche market. Maybe it will be a success in a post-national world where banks and sovereign debts aren't able to serve our needs, but until then it all feels like LARPing to me.
- firethief 8y ago
  Cartels already have anonymous payment channels, which Bitcoin is not.
- arsenico 8y ago
  > giving cartels an anonymous payment channel Bitcoin is not anonymous, this is a big misconception. It is pseudonymous at best. US dollars are anonymous.
peteretep 8y ago
> Would you object to me saying "bitcoin" For me, the jury is still out, cf tulip bubble. > of us having a reasonable secure and (seemingly) anonymous currency I'd object to that on the basis that most crypto-currencies have a public ledger, and I believe deanonymization is already somewhat effective and also only just in its infancy. I would not want to have committed anything to the blockchain that I wasn't happy for the world to know. I believe this is solvable in future innovations, but appears to be far from widely deployed. The linked post appears to be a possible solution. Also I think the whole tainted coins concept, where a government marks transactions emanating from a wallet, and all linked transactions after that, is going to be a much much bigger deal than people think. It seems very unlikely to me that companies like Coinbase won't have to maintain a blacklist at some point in the future if they want to stay on the good side of regulators, which will lead to all sorts of turbulent effects.
wpietri 8y ago
I would probably object to Bitcoin counting. Its original notion was "peer-to-peer electronic cash". As best I can tell, there's almost no significant legal use beyond speculation. [1] Even prominent Bitcoin advocates have admitted it isn't a good currency. [2] Illegal use is self-limiting; if Bitcoin becomes mainly known as the crime currency, it'll be truly screwed, as governments everywhere will further crack down on conversion and use, driving off investors, developers, business partners, etc. I think it's especially obvious how much it's failed as e-cash when you compare it with M-Pesa, an African e-money system. [3] It started just a year before Bitcoin, but does something like 100x the transaction volume and is wildly popular in a number of countries. [1] E.g., https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/nyregion/new-york-today-living-on-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/16/nyregion/new-york-today-l... [2] E.g., https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ https://avc.com/2017/08/store-of-value-vs-payment-system/ [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-Pesa
- arisAlexis 8y ago
  Bitcoin is the most transparent form of money invented and in circulation. That's why a number of studies you can find online place criminal activity quite low. Who wants a trackable currency vs dollars?
  - chx 8y ago
    It's a very interesting thing to call it "money". It's ... not. Not unless you want to call every scarce good money. This has bene rehearsed many a time over the years. It's too volatile but be usable as a unit of account, it's not backed by a nation state and it can't be used to create credit. These are all important functions of money and Bitcoin has none of it. And no, it's not a Ponzi scheme either, it's a new kind of scam: https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/ https://prestonbyrne.com/2017/12/08/bitcoin_ponzi/
    - arisAlexis 8y ago
      not being controlled by any government and not being able to create it out of thin air for credit is a feature not a bug. but if you are calling bitcoin scam in 2019 I don't think we can have a rational argument.

willio58 8y ago

Aaand there it is. I do agree that the skepticism of blockchain projects is not unwarranted given the extreme bubble that occurred and the lack of actual use in the industry, but I do agree with the previous comment that it’s a nice change to be able to talk about this stuff without so much negativity. I haven’t made any money from blockchains, but they are still super interesting from an implementation perspective.

peteretep 8y ago
> Aaand there it is ... so much negativity. If reasoned skepticism in response to a comment inviting skepticism strikes you as negativity, your fervor sounds religious.
- billions 8y ago
  Personal attacks are not contributions here
  - peteretep 8y ago
    Saying that someone's argument doesn't seem to be well-rooted is far from a personal attack.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

Ihfhcub 8y ago

The only answer is bitcoin. The rest are scams highjacking the technology to sell pseudoscience and vaporware. See Ethereum