4 ms·

If blockchain is so great, where are all the killer apps for this fantastic new technology? C'mon, we're 10 years into the cryptocurrency revolution, and we're

If blockchain is so great, where are all the killer apps for this fantastic new technology? C'mon, we're 10 years into the cryptocurrency revolution, and we're still arguing about hypothetical use cases.

sparkie 8y ago
"Blockchain" is over-hyped. Bitcoin is the real innovation. The use-case has been clear since its inception: It is censorship resistant digital money with no externally-decided monetary policy. There are a lot of people who want it to be something else, or who want to sell you some snake oil because they missed out on the opportunity to accumulate a lot of Bitcoin early on when it was cheap, and think that they'll be able to repeat the process with them at the forefront. It is all utter nonsense. Each project which prints its own token undermines whatever technology they think they've invented, because the fixed monetary supply was one of the key innovations of Bitcoin. Removing that innovation from your own project only makes your project inferior to Bitcoin by design, but bitcoin still remains immutable to changes in its monetary policy. Every "blockchain" idea can actually be implemented as a pegged sidechain to Bitcoin, and avoid the need to print its own currency. This is the simple litmus test of whether or not it is snake oil.
- ForHackernews 8y ago
  To me, Bitcoin seems like an ecological crime that abets other crimes.
  - dane-pgp 8y ago
    To me, the internal combustion engine seems like an ecological crime that abets other crimes.
    - ForHackernews 8y ago
      Yes, ICEs also needs to be eliminated as soon as possible. Switching off bitcoin is likely the easier of those two transitions.
      - dane-pgp 8y ago
        If you're advocating that we innovate an alternative to bitcoin, which has the same decentralisation and censorship-resistance properties, but a greatly reduced energy footprint (for the same level of security), then I agree and support that transition. If, instead, you're suggesting that some (global?) central planning committing should decide which technologies are allowed to exist, based on some subjective determination that a given technology uses "too much" energy compared to how "useful" it is, then I think such a system of control is likely to be abused. For comparison, 2nd generation cryptocurrencies (like Litecoin and Ethereum) are comparable in their energy usage (per unit of economic value created) to mining rare earth metals, and over 10 times more energy efficient than producing aluminium: https://s3.cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/728accd6772be6566fab7621b469f2da.png https://s3.cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/728accd677...
        sparkie 8y ago
        No better alternative is going to be found for Bitcoin. Bitcoin's security depends on it being super expensive to attempt to hack. Electricity is perhaps the most in-demand good (aside from food and water) over the globe. Those other systems like PoS do not have the same irreversible commitments as the commitment to exhaust energy. No matter what you do, you aren't going to get the energy back. Bitcoin miners will force innovation in cheap renewable energy sources because without them, they will be out-competed and will not stay in business for long, because someone else will make the investments. Bitcoin mining will eventually be run on low cost, low maintenance renewable sources. Some of it already is. Real business needs end up producing results. Virtue signalling middle classes who won't put their own money where their mouth is do not.
        ForHackernews 8y ago
        The Chinese government could effectively end bitcoin mining tomorrow if they decided to. Aluminium is useful. Rare earth metals are useful. Bitcoin (see top question) is not useful (citation: after 10 years, almost nobody is using it).
        8y ago
Zaskoda 8y ago
I think ICOs were something of a killer app and they served to move things forward considerably. I don't think people have fully realized the breadth and depth of impact ICOs have had yet. For some relativity: - 1969: ARPANET - 1971: Email - 1973: TCP/IP - 1980: Usenet - 1989: Commercial ISP - 1994: Netscape - 1999: AJAX / Live Journal - 2001: Dot com bubble. - 2004: Gmail/Facebook - 2006: Twitter - 2009: Bitcoin - 2011: Twitch - 2013: First ICO - 2014: Alexa - 2015: Ethereum - 2017: Cryptokitties, EOS - 2018: Tron - 2019: Profit? I think the next wave of killer apps will include a lot of creative new games. I think gaming will be a big force in blockchain adoption in general.
- jMyles 8y ago
  Nice timeline. But... Tron?!
  - Zaskoda 8y ago
    I'm not a Tron fan, I listed it because 1) it was something that happened last year and 2) a few of the most played dapp games are running on Tron right now (and EOS) Now I'm wondering, what else happened last year? I was sleepy.
tim333 8y ago
Scammy investments have been huge! Many of the remaining enthusiasts think this will transition to non scammy investment via security tokens.

sparkie 8y ago

"Blockchain" is over-hyped. Bitcoin is the real innovation. The use-case has been clear since its inception: It is censorship resistant digital money with no externally-decided monetary policy. There are a lot of people who want it to be something else, or who want to sell you some snake oil because they missed out on the opportunity to accumulate a lot of Bitcoin early on when it was cheap, and think that they'll be able to repeat the process with them at the forefront. It is all utter nonsense. Each project which prints its own token undermines whatever technology they think they've invented, because the fixed monetary supply was one of the key innovations of Bitcoin. Removing that innovation from your own project only makes your project inferior to Bitcoin by design, but bitcoin still remains immutable to changes in its monetary policy. Every "blockchain" idea can actually be implemented as a pegged sidechain to Bitcoin, and avoid the need to print its own currency. This is the simple litmus test of whether or not it is snake oil.

ForHackernews 8y ago
To me, Bitcoin seems like an ecological crime that abets other crimes.
- dane-pgp 8y ago
  To me, the internal combustion engine seems like an ecological crime that abets other crimes.
  - ForHackernews 8y ago
    Yes, ICEs also needs to be eliminated as soon as possible. Switching off bitcoin is likely the easier of those two transitions.
    - dane-pgp 8y ago
      If you're advocating that we innovate an alternative to bitcoin, which has the same decentralisation and censorship-resistance properties, but a greatly reduced energy footprint (for the same level of security), then I agree and support that transition. If, instead, you're suggesting that some (global?) central planning committing should decide which technologies are allowed to exist, based on some subjective determination that a given technology uses "too much" energy compared to how "useful" it is, then I think such a system of control is likely to be abused. For comparison, 2nd generation cryptocurrencies (like Litecoin and Ethereum) are comparable in their energy usage (per unit of economic value created) to mining rare earth metals, and over 10 times more energy efficient than producing aluminium: https://s3.cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/728accd6772be6566fab7621b469f2da.png https://s3.cointelegraph.com/storage/uploads/view/728accd677...
      - sparkie 8y ago
        No better alternative is going to be found for Bitcoin. Bitcoin's security depends on it being super expensive to attempt to hack. Electricity is perhaps the most in-demand good (aside from food and water) over the globe. Those other systems like PoS do not have the same irreversible commitments as the commitment to exhaust energy. No matter what you do, you aren't going to get the energy back. Bitcoin miners will force innovation in cheap renewable energy sources because without them, they will be out-competed and will not stay in business for long, because someone else will make the investments. Bitcoin mining will eventually be run on low cost, low maintenance renewable sources. Some of it already is. Real business needs end up producing results. Virtue signalling middle classes who won't put their own money where their mouth is do not.
      - ForHackernews 8y ago
        The Chinese government could effectively end bitcoin mining tomorrow if they decided to. Aluminium is useful. Rare earth metals are useful. Bitcoin (see top question) is not useful (citation: after 10 years, almost nobody is using it).
        8y ago

Zaskoda 8y ago

I think ICOs were something of a killer app and they served to move things forward considerably. I don't think people have fully realized the breadth and depth of impact ICOs have had yet. For some relativity: - 1969: ARPANET - 1971: Email - 1973: TCP/IP - 1980: Usenet - 1989: Commercial ISP - 1994: Netscape - 1999: AJAX / Live Journal - 2001: Dot com bubble. - 2004: Gmail/Facebook - 2006: Twitter - 2009: Bitcoin - 2011: Twitch - 2013: First ICO - 2014: Alexa - 2015: Ethereum - 2017: Cryptokitties, EOS - 2018: Tron - 2019: Profit? I think the next wave of killer apps will include a lot of creative new games. I think gaming will be a big force in blockchain adoption in general.

jMyles 8y ago
Nice timeline. But... Tron?!
- Zaskoda 8y ago
  I'm not a Tron fan, I listed it because 1) it was something that happened last year and 2) a few of the most played dapp games are running on Tron right now (and EOS) Now I'm wondering, what else happened last year? I was sleepy.

tim333 8y ago

Scammy investments have been huge! Many of the remaining enthusiasts think this will transition to non scammy investment via security tokens.