3 ms·

I'm an old man, so let me show you how to frame thinking about blockchain. I experienced the 90's, so let me tell you why email will never take off, since we h

I'm an old man, so let me show you how to frame thinking about blockchain. I experienced the 90's, so let me tell you why email will never take off, since we have a trustworthy postal service: 1. Almost nobody you know has an email address, but everyone has a real address. 2. People want to have something they can touch, a personal, perfumed handwritten letter. Not a cold virtual thing with printed letters. 3. You can enclose a polaroid picture in an envelope, this is impossible with email. 4. If you really want, you can send a VHS video tape with the post. This is impossible with email. 5. They say email is faster, but if you need someone urgently, you just call them. So therefore, email will never become as popular as sending envelope mails. I rest my case.

WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 7y ago
As a counterexample, look at how sure people and companies were that AI would take off and solve most problems in the 80s. Historically, you can find plenty of examples for both over- and underhyped technologies. It's a complex world, and trying to project these historical events onto new technologies is useless. It's like saying, "well, look at what the stock market did 20 years ago, it has to go up today!" - You may be right or you may be wrong, but unless you have huge leverage and build the future yourself you're just tossing a coin here.
- koonsolo 7y ago
  I agree with you. Maybe the main point I wanted to bring across is that blockchain will not live in the present, it will live in the future. The polaroid picture in my email comparison it really nice in that sense. Nobody was taking digital photo's. For a long time it was even unclear if digital photography would ever surpass traditional. (and some companies made some painful decisions here). Nothing important is in the blockchain yet, so what can you really accomplish with smart contracts now anyway? But I agree with you that it is unclear if it will take of or not in the future. But you cannot dismiss a technology because it is not viable in the present.
  - louwrentius 7y ago
    I find your examples / analogies not convincing. Email and digital photography have very clear benefits and those where totally transparent from the beginning . I can see none for bt.
    - koonsolo 7y ago
      Hindsight is 20/20. You probably never lived in the age where people were convinced that digital photography would never reach the quality of "real" photography. If blockchain ever takes of, I'm sure it was all obvious from the start to everyone. I've lived long enough to know human reasoning.
      - louwrentius 7y ago
        No, that analogy with digital photography is really bad. You know, it was immediately clear why digital photography would be so beneficial: no film. Instant gratification / feedback. So less hassle. It would be only a matter of years before the tech - as with moore's law - would catch up. Which it did. Blockchain is not obvious at all. It doesn't seem to solve a problem we have. Maybe blockchain shows that we do trust each other more than we think.
- quickthrower2 7y ago
  AI is a nebulous term though.
acdha 7y ago
The problem with that analogy is that everyone jumped on email in the 80s and 90s because the immediacy was compelling: it was one of the first services which businesses adopted since it quickly saved money and improved performance, even if you were just using dialup. In contrast, we’re a decade in with much lower barriers to entry, huge media presence, and massive VC cash infusions but nobody has managed to make something which anyone outside that world needs. The closest I’ve seen are the companies successfully using FOMO to sell centralized databases with digital signatures to large companies.

WnZ39p0Dgydaz1 7y ago

As a counterexample, look at how sure people and companies were that AI would take off and solve most problems in the 80s. Historically, you can find plenty of examples for both over- and underhyped technologies. It's a complex world, and trying to project these historical events onto new technologies is useless. It's like saying, "well, look at what the stock market did 20 years ago, it has to go up today!" - You may be right or you may be wrong, but unless you have huge leverage and build the future yourself you're just tossing a coin here.

koonsolo 7y ago
I agree with you. Maybe the main point I wanted to bring across is that blockchain will not live in the present, it will live in the future. The polaroid picture in my email comparison it really nice in that sense. Nobody was taking digital photo's. For a long time it was even unclear if digital photography would ever surpass traditional. (and some companies made some painful decisions here). Nothing important is in the blockchain yet, so what can you really accomplish with smart contracts now anyway? But I agree with you that it is unclear if it will take of or not in the future. But you cannot dismiss a technology because it is not viable in the present.
- louwrentius 7y ago
  I find your examples / analogies not convincing. Email and digital photography have very clear benefits and those where totally transparent from the beginning . I can see none for bt.
  - koonsolo 7y ago
    Hindsight is 20/20. You probably never lived in the age where people were convinced that digital photography would never reach the quality of "real" photography. If blockchain ever takes of, I'm sure it was all obvious from the start to everyone. I've lived long enough to know human reasoning.
    - louwrentius 7y ago
      No, that analogy with digital photography is really bad. You know, it was immediately clear why digital photography would be so beneficial: no film. Instant gratification / feedback. So less hassle. It would be only a matter of years before the tech - as with moore's law - would catch up. Which it did. Blockchain is not obvious at all. It doesn't seem to solve a problem we have. Maybe blockchain shows that we do trust each other more than we think.
quickthrower2 7y ago
AI is a nebulous term though.

acdha 7y ago

The problem with that analogy is that everyone jumped on email in the 80s and 90s because the immediacy was compelling: it was one of the first services which businesses adopted since it quickly saved money and improved performance, even if you were just using dialup. In contrast, we’re a decade in with much lower barriers to entry, huge media presence, and massive VC cash infusions but nobody has managed to make something which anyone outside that world needs. The closest I’ve seen are the companies successfully using FOMO to sell centralized databases with digital signatures to large companies.