7 ms·

I encourage anyone with this perspective to read Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. The book examines cases where the world is moved by disruptiv

by Empact 7y ago

I encourage anyone with this perspective to read Clayton Christensen’s “The Innovator’s Dilemma”. The book examines cases where the world is moved by disruptive technology - one property is that they are at first derided and dismissed as too limited / impractical / toys, before eclipsing the capabilities of the legacy technology, e.g. the very limited initial hydraulic construction equipment which came to lose its limitations and replace cable-driven alternatives in the 20th century.

intertextuality 7y ago
We are allowed to acknowledge disadvantages and advantages of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't the future, but it sure is the progenitor of what will be used in the future.
- vinniejames 7y ago
  The future is the largest, most accepted, universal payment system. To say that Bitcoin won't/can't evolve into this is very nearsighted
  - intertextuality 7y ago
    It won't. The concepts of bitcoin will be iterated on and polished into something that's actually useful. Bitcoin will not be the future as I said, but an improvement on it will. Something that's actually useful.
audunw 7y ago
I’ve read the book. Just because something is ridiculed, doesn’t mean that it’ll be a success eventually. Sometimes it’s actually just a bad solution. It was pretty clear that the innovations in that book provided some value. I don’t remember it being a thing that most of them were ridiculed, it’s just that the established alternative represented a much higher revenue stream for the established companies that they didn’t see a point investing time and resources in the alternatives. The core problem is that the only real value blockchains provide is systems that can be implemented without a root of trust. So by definition it only provides significant value in failed states. But the real solution here is to build functioning states with trustworthy courts that can be the final arbiter in the case of disputes L
- Empact 7y ago
  On your first point, agreed, and I don’t defend all blockchain projects, or even any particular one, only call to mind that these systems are prone to surprise us with their progress. If you see no problem in government’s management of currency, and you see no failure of trust in the banks and institutions that preside over it, propped up by regular bailouts, it’s no surprise then that you see no value in Bitcoin. But mind that cable-drawn construction equipment went out not because it was limited in the good times, but because it had a rare and catastrophic failure mode, of collapsing when the cable would break. Fiat is analogous - when it fails, it brings about devolution of society and desperation of its people, ala Venezuela. I’m happy Bitcoin exists, if for no other reason than to protect against that. If you doubt that a transformational aspect will make the limited Bitcoin into something that can serve as a global currency, take a look at the Lightning Network - it’s live and providing scalable, instantaneous and negligible fee transactions now. https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo

by Empact 7y ago

intertextuality 7y ago

We are allowed to acknowledge disadvantages and advantages of Bitcoin. Bitcoin isn't the future, but it sure is the progenitor of what will be used in the future.

vinniejames 7y ago
The future is the largest, most accepted, universal payment system. To say that Bitcoin won't/can't evolve into this is very nearsighted
- intertextuality 7y ago
  It won't. The concepts of bitcoin will be iterated on and polished into something that's actually useful. Bitcoin will not be the future as I said, but an improvement on it will. Something that's actually useful.

audunw 7y ago

I’ve read the book. Just because something is ridiculed, doesn’t mean that it’ll be a success eventually. Sometimes it’s actually just a bad solution. It was pretty clear that the innovations in that book provided some value. I don’t remember it being a thing that most of them were ridiculed, it’s just that the established alternative represented a much higher revenue stream for the established companies that they didn’t see a point investing time and resources in the alternatives. The core problem is that the only real value blockchains provide is systems that can be implemented without a root of trust. So by definition it only provides significant value in failed states. But the real solution here is to build functioning states with trustworthy courts that can be the final arbiter in the case of disputes L

Empact 7y ago
On your first point, agreed, and I don’t defend all blockchain projects, or even any particular one, only call to mind that these systems are prone to surprise us with their progress. If you see no problem in government’s management of currency, and you see no failure of trust in the banks and institutions that preside over it, propped up by regular bailouts, it’s no surprise then that you see no value in Bitcoin. But mind that cable-drawn construction equipment went out not because it was limited in the good times, but because it had a rare and catastrophic failure mode, of collapsing when the cable would break. Fiat is analogous - when it fails, it brings about devolution of society and desperation of its people, ala Venezuela. I’m happy Bitcoin exists, if for no other reason than to protect against that. If you doubt that a transformational aspect will make the limited Bitcoin into something that can serve as a global currency, take a look at the Lightning Network - it’s live and providing scalable, instantaneous and negligible fee transactions now. https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo https://youtu.be/8zVzw912wPo