4 ms·

For information technology that's really long. It didn't take us 10+ years to find a useful purpose for smartphones or the internet. If for many years so much m

For information technology that's really long. It didn't take us 10+ years to find a useful purpose for smartphones or the internet. If for many years so much money is thrown at it and so many intelligent people are working at it and nothing fundamental comes it, I think it's safe to conclude that it's nearly useless.

keiferski 6y ago
Sorry but again, dismissing something based on barely over a decade of data is incredibly shortsighted. The economic success of a technology isn’t a recipe that merely requires capital and intelligent people. That isn’t how history works.
sparkie 6y ago
> It didn't take us 10+ years to find a useful purpose for smartphones or the internet. It took decades before the internet and mobile phones had any significant market penetration, and then within the space of a few years there are fewer people without it than with it. Technology adoption typically follows a Gompertz function: initially slow, but then rapid adoption before declining as there's no larger audience to adopt it. Bitcoin presents a fundamental shift in how we treat money which can have a knock on effect on every other industry, just as the internet did. If you think it's time to call it off after 10 years (despite continued new interest over that time), this is a bit short-sighted. The issue with "cryptocurrency," is unlike Bitcoin, they don't actually provide us with any new innovation. They are scams designed to enrich their creators, who pretend that changing a few variables in a codebase can replicate the invention of Bitcoin. All "cryptocurrency" are useless because they don't have the permanent fix for inflation that Bitcoin has. They introduce inflation by design - they are fiat money made digital. Bitcoin's key innovation is the fix for inflation, which is now impossible to replicate because Bitcoin already exists.
- louwrentius 6y ago
  The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. The tech was not good enough to make the visions come true. With blockchain it’s reversed: we have suddenly tech but after 11 years still no idea other than use it to sell drugs, and boil the oceans.
  - sparkie 6y ago
    > The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. Who is "we?" A small group understood the applications early on and was way ahead of the curve. Obviously costs coming down in the 90s enabled a wider audience to access the technologies - but most were clueless of its potential until they were already using it. This is the case for Bitcoin now. Selling drugs has little to do with it, other than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. Bitcoin is about sovereign control of one's own property - a way of saving money which cannot be unjustly taxed. All other applications of the technology will emerge from the fact that it's better money for anybody who actually has any. Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realize the internet's potential in 1998? > “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’ becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens.
    - louwrentius 6y ago
      Everybody wanted a pocket computer and when that finally became viable with the iPhone, the market exploded. We knew what we wanted, but the interface was a problem and Apple solved it. We knew what we wanted but we could not get there, until then. None of the bitcoin/blockchain people can exactly explain why blockchain or bitcoin is relevant. Even after 11 years they can't. > than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. A citizen pays their due taxes, as required to run a decent society. Cryptopeople just want to have a means for tax evasion: to support criminal behaviour. > Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realise the internet's potential in 1998? Haha, I don't think so. The purpose of the internet was very clear. It was just too hyped. But it recovered. crypto and blockchain are hyped, but the purpose is not clear at all. Big difference. > Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens. We have already money. And we already have means to pay people in other countries. And they are overall more convenient and the transaction costs are not an issue for most applications.

keiferski 6y ago

Sorry but again, dismissing something based on barely over a decade of data is incredibly shortsighted. The economic success of a technology isn’t a recipe that merely requires capital and intelligent people. That isn’t how history works.

sparkie 6y ago

> It didn't take us 10+ years to find a useful purpose for smartphones or the internet. It took decades before the internet and mobile phones had any significant market penetration, and then within the space of a few years there are fewer people without it than with it. Technology adoption typically follows a Gompertz function: initially slow, but then rapid adoption before declining as there's no larger audience to adopt it. Bitcoin presents a fundamental shift in how we treat money which can have a knock on effect on every other industry, just as the internet did. If you think it's time to call it off after 10 years (despite continued new interest over that time), this is a bit short-sighted. The issue with "cryptocurrency," is unlike Bitcoin, they don't actually provide us with any new innovation. They are scams designed to enrich their creators, who pretend that changing a few variables in a codebase can replicate the invention of Bitcoin. All "cryptocurrency" are useless because they don't have the permanent fix for inflation that Bitcoin has. They introduce inflation by design - they are fiat money made digital. Bitcoin's key innovation is the fix for inflation, which is now impossible to replicate because Bitcoin already exists.

louwrentius 6y ago
The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. The tech was not good enough to make the visions come true. With blockchain it’s reversed: we have suddenly tech but after 11 years still no idea other than use it to sell drugs, and boil the oceans.
- sparkie 6y ago
  > The internet and smartphones were popular and we understood the applications. Who is "we?" A small group understood the applications early on and was way ahead of the curve. Obviously costs coming down in the 90s enabled a wider audience to access the technologies - but most were clueless of its potential until they were already using it. This is the case for Bitcoin now. Selling drugs has little to do with it, other than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. Bitcoin is about sovereign control of one's own property - a way of saving money which cannot be unjustly taxed. All other applications of the technology will emerge from the fact that it's better money for anybody who actually has any. Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realize the internet's potential in 1998? > “The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in ‘Metcalfe’s law’ becomes apparent: most people have nothing to say to each other! By 2005, it will become clear that the Internet’s impact on the economy has been no greater than the fax machine’s” Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens.
  - louwrentius 6y ago
    Everybody wanted a pocket computer and when that finally became viable with the iPhone, the market exploded. We knew what we wanted, but the interface was a problem and Apple solved it. We knew what we wanted but we could not get there, until then. None of the bitcoin/blockchain people can exactly explain why blockchain or bitcoin is relevant. Even after 11 years they can't. > than demonstrating the future role of the State meddling in people's personal finance. A citizen pays their due taxes, as required to run a decent society. Cryptopeople just want to have a means for tax evasion: to support criminal behaviour. > Are you just another Krugman, who still didn't realise the internet's potential in 1998? Haha, I don't think so. The purpose of the internet was very clear. It was just too hyped. But it recovered. crypto and blockchain are hyped, but the purpose is not clear at all. Big difference. > Oh, and "cryptocurrencies" are like the Intranets of the 90s. Everyone wants their own, for now, until they realize that being part of the global digital money network has far more advantages than trying to work with walled gardens. We have already money. And we already have means to pay people in other countries. And they are overall more convenient and the transaction costs are not an issue for most applications.