4 ms·

"New technologies are always shitshows when they get started. " A key difference is most of the new techs like Internet, email, Paypal, and so on improved on w

"New technologies are always shitshows when they get started. " A key difference is most of the new techs like Internet, email, Paypal, and so on improved on what people already had in a way that delivered obvious value. They also came with problems. Whereas, nobody I know in real life wants the drawbacks of these cryptocurrencies that come with giving up the benefits of their current, centralized offerings. The only folks I know out here doing crypto are speculators (esp day traders). That's the difference. Now, if they wanted to solve those problems, they'd start with whatever tech/law/orgs already worked, identify their problems, and then mitigate them using proven methods. So, we're looking at credit unions, non-profits, or public-benefit companies chartered to make sure they do specific good things and don't do specific bad things. The most important stuff at least. These can be in the licenses and contracts, too, for re-enforcement. Then, centralized systems with decentralized checking of what's exchanged a la SWIFT all using existing high-performance tech we know how to secure. Open protocols and agreements for how disputes will be resolved in situations using decentralized mode with experts from both centralized and decentralized models weighing in on that. I've been talking about that in Gerard's threads on Lobsters: https://lobste.rs/s/wxqkyj/bitcoin_s_stupendous_power_waste_is_green#c_mygfqo https://lobste.rs/s/wxqkyj/bitcoin_s_stupendous_power_waste_... https://lobste.rs/s/opge2r/electricity_consumed_by_bitcoin#c_cds5tt https://lobste.rs/s/opge2r/electricity_consumed_by_bitcoin#c... I can't find the other ones sense the search feature is limited. "they're so desperate for a solution that they put up with a solution that basically doesn't work. " That's true when there's a need. This is part of a hype cycle pushing stuff people don't need to replace stuff that would meet their needs fine. Accelerated by massive amounts of money being thrown all over this area. Totally different kind of thing. The stuff that bubbles, bankruptcies, and broken dreams are made of.

lojack 8y ago
> A key difference is most of the new techs like Internet, email, Paypal, and so on improved on what people already had in a way that delivered obvious value. I'd argue that for most people the value was only obvious afterwards. To put email in perspective, early adopters had to choose between what they already knew and all the hurdles involved in connecting to the internet and using the new technology. There was also a good chance the people they were trying to communicate with didn't even have email. Outside of a few niche areas, email provided no obvious value to the vast majority of people for decades.
- nickpsecurity 8y ago
  The thing I was getting at is, if you had a computer and Internet, then email would be a free, fast alternative to traditional mail. That has obvious benefit. Whereas, these currencies are volatile, slower, often dont allow charge backs, use more energy, and accepted at fewer places. Worse in every way to checking accounts and credit cards. Esp if we have multiple cards or accounts to reduce risk of single institution.
  - lojack 8y ago
    > if you had a computer and Internet Thats a lot of hand waving for something that wasn't trivial at all in the 60s and 70s.
  - tuesdayrain 8y ago
    No chargebacks is a feature in many situations.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    Worse in every way to checking accounts and credit cards. Quite a few Venezuelans would beg to differ about that.
    - oblio 8y ago
      So for cryptocurrencies to be the "better solution" you just need your entire country to have a total meltdown lasting multiple years?
      - ahje 8y ago
        > you just need your entire country to have a total meltdown That happens more often than one might think. There are quite a few countries, that are currenly on the brink of collapse, so it is not unlikely that one or more of them will adopt a cryptocurrency some time in the not to far-off future.
        8y ago

lojack 8y ago

> A key difference is most of the new techs like Internet, email, Paypal, and so on improved on what people already had in a way that delivered obvious value. I'd argue that for most people the value was only obvious afterwards. To put email in perspective, early adopters had to choose between what they already knew and all the hurdles involved in connecting to the internet and using the new technology. There was also a good chance the people they were trying to communicate with didn't even have email. Outside of a few niche areas, email provided no obvious value to the vast majority of people for decades.

nickpsecurity 8y ago
The thing I was getting at is, if you had a computer and Internet, then email would be a free, fast alternative to traditional mail. That has obvious benefit. Whereas, these currencies are volatile, slower, often dont allow charge backs, use more energy, and accepted at fewer places. Worse in every way to checking accounts and credit cards. Esp if we have multiple cards or accounts to reduce risk of single institution.
- lojack 8y ago
  > if you had a computer and Internet Thats a lot of hand waving for something that wasn't trivial at all in the 60s and 70s.
- tuesdayrain 8y ago
  No chargebacks is a feature in many situations.
- stickfigure 8y ago
  Worse in every way to checking accounts and credit cards. Quite a few Venezuelans would beg to differ about that.
  - oblio 8y ago
    So for cryptocurrencies to be the "better solution" you just need your entire country to have a total meltdown lasting multiple years?
    - ahje 8y ago
      > you just need your entire country to have a total meltdown That happens more often than one might think. There are quite a few countries, that are currenly on the brink of collapse, so it is not unlikely that one or more of them will adopt a cryptocurrency some time in the not to far-off future.
      - 8y ago