6 ms·

I don’t see what is the point of this comment other than “hurr durr blockchain bad”. Providing a marketplace tokenised assets/digital assets is useful.

by verroq 7y ago

arcticbull 7y ago
In what way is it useful? You say that like it's obvious, but it's not. It's on the challenger to explain why it's better than the status quo, not the other way around.
- verroq 7y ago
  Because there is no status quo? (And solutions that aren’t better than status quo should be automatically thrown in the trash?). Now if your question is why are markets useful, then that is obvious is it not? Secondly, I find this viewpoint highly regressive, the asking of why is X useful question. We can go to the moon but why is it useful? These type of questions are ultimately backwards and short sighted. Why do we spend X to research Y and why is Y useful is not clear until $many_years. It may not be obvious to you if it is useful or not but it is not up to you to decide (the invisible hand of the market decides). From your other comments, it is clear that you have already decided that “all cryptocurrency are scams” so I don’t think you are arguing this point in good faith.
  - arcticbull 7y ago
    > Because there is no status quo? (And solutions that aren’t better than status quo should be automatically thrown in the trash?). I think in general, people are excited by technology that's innovative and promising. It doesn't have to solve problems better or more efficiently today but it should have some clear path to doing so, yeah. > Now if your question is why are markets useful, then that is obvious is it not? I guess what I'm asking is why are markets for crypto tokens useful? If I built great tech around markets but it only let you exchange week old chicken nuggets would that be valuable? > From your other comments, it is clear that you have already decided that “all cryptocurrency are scams” so I don’t think you are arguing this point in good faith. Substitute 'cryptocurrency' for 'entries in a MySQL store' and re-read everything that's been posted here. Going to the moon yielded amazing technological advances, in engineering, in materials science, in physics, chemistry, national identity, etc and promises to do so again as we iterate. Capital and research expenditure isn't negative sum. Then who knows what we might find out there? Crypto is not new technology in any way. It's a 10-year-old recombination of 20-year-old tooling. Merkle trees and hashcash. That's it. All the money being spent on it is paying miners in China to repeatedly hash numbers and pay their electric bills. There's no research, no innovation. Just people selling each other spreadsheet cells they're sure are going to be worth something one day because 'blockchain'. It's religious, not scientific. Combine that with the world of finance, zero regulation and irreversibility, there's no way to make it anything other than a scammer's paradise. Scamming people is a feature, not a bug. All based on what, the idea that 'inflation is theft' and 'the gubmint shouldn't tell me who to send money to'? Any ECON-101 class will set you straight. It's actively anti-efficient, regressive in terms of user experience and negative-sum: the more the price goes up the more you have to pay miners, the more cash needs to come into the system to keep the price stable. PoW isn't decentralized (>51% of BTC hashpower is concentrated in a few mining pools in the PRC), it's not trustless (PRC), it's not fast (7tx/sec), it's not cheap, it's not a good store of value and it fails to solve human problems (deflationary in the face of an expanding population and economy). It's abjectly failed at every one of it's stated goals, all that's left is 'number go up.' What's to like?
    - pizy 7y ago
      If crypto was a fad it would have died long ago. Yet here we are still talking about it with more money and development behind it than ever before. I really encourage you to read this newspaper column from 1995 predicting the end of the internet because just as you have put it, there are already way better options out there. https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/ https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-b...
      - arcticbull 7y ago
        > If crypto was a fad it would have died long ago. That's appeal to authority. Let's focus on what it does and doesn't do, and how well. The internet wasn't built to literally become less efficient the more data was transferred over it, right?
        pizy 7y ago
        Why are we judging it on it's capabilities of today? Scaling is a problem actively being worked on. Again, your comment draws a parallel to the aforementioned article. There are certainly problems, but some of us see the potential for a true digital cash and people will continue to work on it one way or another until it's achieved.
        chrisco255 7y ago
        It was built on the crudest app tech stack vis a vis HTML, CSS and (not even sure JS was a thing yet in 1995) JS. Not many could predict the cloud becoming a multi trillion dollar industry in 1995.
    - verroq 7y ago
      I don’t see why crypto skeptics feel the need to regurgitate the same tried and debunked talking points into every single thread about crypto. This unhinged rant might as well be a copypasta at this point. None of this thread is even about bitcoin. @dang can you do something about this.

I don’t see what is the point of this comment other than “hurr durr blockchain bad”. Providing a marketplace tokenised assets/digital assets is useful.

by verroq 7y ago

I don’t see what is the point of this comment other than “hurr durr blockchain bad”. Providing a marketplace tokenised assets/digital assets is useful.

arcticbull 7y ago

In what way is it useful? You say that like it's obvious, but it's not. It's on the challenger to explain why it's better than the status quo, not the other way around.

verroq 7y ago
Because there is no status quo? (And solutions that aren’t better than status quo should be automatically thrown in the trash?). Now if your question is why are markets useful, then that is obvious is it not? Secondly, I find this viewpoint highly regressive, the asking of why is X useful question. We can go to the moon but why is it useful? These type of questions are ultimately backwards and short sighted. Why do we spend X to research Y and why is Y useful is not clear until $many_years. It may not be obvious to you if it is useful or not but it is not up to you to decide (the invisible hand of the market decides). From your other comments, it is clear that you have already decided that “all cryptocurrency are scams” so I don’t think you are arguing this point in good faith.
- arcticbull 7y ago
  > Because there is no status quo? (And solutions that aren’t better than status quo should be automatically thrown in the trash?). I think in general, people are excited by technology that's innovative and promising. It doesn't have to solve problems better or more efficiently today but it should have some clear path to doing so, yeah. > Now if your question is why are markets useful, then that is obvious is it not? I guess what I'm asking is why are markets for crypto tokens useful? If I built great tech around markets but it only let you exchange week old chicken nuggets would that be valuable? > From your other comments, it is clear that you have already decided that “all cryptocurrency are scams” so I don’t think you are arguing this point in good faith. Substitute 'cryptocurrency' for 'entries in a MySQL store' and re-read everything that's been posted here. Going to the moon yielded amazing technological advances, in engineering, in materials science, in physics, chemistry, national identity, etc and promises to do so again as we iterate. Capital and research expenditure isn't negative sum. Then who knows what we might find out there? Crypto is not new technology in any way. It's a 10-year-old recombination of 20-year-old tooling. Merkle trees and hashcash. That's it. All the money being spent on it is paying miners in China to repeatedly hash numbers and pay their electric bills. There's no research, no innovation. Just people selling each other spreadsheet cells they're sure are going to be worth something one day because 'blockchain'. It's religious, not scientific. Combine that with the world of finance, zero regulation and irreversibility, there's no way to make it anything other than a scammer's paradise. Scamming people is a feature, not a bug. All based on what, the idea that 'inflation is theft' and 'the gubmint shouldn't tell me who to send money to'? Any ECON-101 class will set you straight. It's actively anti-efficient, regressive in terms of user experience and negative-sum: the more the price goes up the more you have to pay miners, the more cash needs to come into the system to keep the price stable. PoW isn't decentralized (>51% of BTC hashpower is concentrated in a few mining pools in the PRC), it's not trustless (PRC), it's not fast (7tx/sec), it's not cheap, it's not a good store of value and it fails to solve human problems (deflationary in the face of an expanding population and economy). It's abjectly failed at every one of it's stated goals, all that's left is 'number go up.' What's to like?
  - pizy 7y ago
    If crypto was a fad it would have died long ago. Yet here we are still talking about it with more money and development behind it than ever before. I really encourage you to read this newspaper column from 1995 predicting the end of the internet because just as you have put it, there are already way better options out there. https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-buy-books-newspapers-straight-intenet-uh/ https://thenextweb.com/shareables/2010/02/27/newsweek-1995-b...
    - arcticbull 7y ago
      > If crypto was a fad it would have died long ago. That's appeal to authority. Let's focus on what it does and doesn't do, and how well. The internet wasn't built to literally become less efficient the more data was transferred over it, right?
      - pizy 7y ago
        Why are we judging it on it's capabilities of today? Scaling is a problem actively being worked on. Again, your comment draws a parallel to the aforementioned article. There are certainly problems, but some of us see the potential for a true digital cash and people will continue to work on it one way or another until it's achieved.
      - chrisco255 7y ago
        It was built on the crudest app tech stack vis a vis HTML, CSS and (not even sure JS was a thing yet in 1995) JS. Not many could predict the cloud becoming a multi trillion dollar industry in 1995.
  - verroq 7y ago
    I don’t see why crypto skeptics feel the need to regurgitate the same tried and debunked talking points into every single thread about crypto. This unhinged rant might as well be a copypasta at this point. None of this thread is even about bitcoin. @dang can you do something about this.