4 ms·
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 pict
by 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 agoI 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 agoHindsight 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 agoNo, 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.