5 ms·

Refer back to my comment where I explicitly said that I'm not advocating for blockchain / DLT, nor did I say that Ethereum / IPFS provide any value. But, there

Refer back to my comment where I explicitly said that I'm not advocating for blockchain / DLT, nor did I say that Ethereum / IPFS provide any value. But, there are millions of dollars in investment and research being poured into these pieces of technology that attempt to address the problem stated in the article. I'm not saying they do or do not solve anything - my point was that it just struck me as odd that an article explicitly talking about crypto and the problems of centralization, didn't so much as mention that there are folks out there trying to fix it. It would be like saying "fracking is a problem" without mentioning any group that's trying to address that problem. It's pointing out a problem without a call to action. Whether or not that call will actually fix that problem is a different story.

nix23 6y ago
>nor did I say that Ethereum / IPFS provide any value. Not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15367531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15367531 Bitcoin: https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-paper-pirate-takes-bitcoin-donations https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-pa... https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/26/how-bitcoin-and-wikileaks-saved-each-other/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/26/how-bitco...
- carterklein13 6y ago
  Okay, jeez, I can't win here. The second you start to advocate for blockchain or mention its potential utility, people will glom on and mock you for being a pipe dreaming gambler. The second you start to advocate against it or mention its overvaluation, people will glom on and mock you for your bootlicking close-mindedness. Personally, I believe in blockchain. I think Ethereum and IPFS may one day be hugely successful. I own ETH, BTC, and a few other coins that I do believe in but also would not be surprised / upset if they went to $0.00 tomorrow. Yes, I know that's gambling. BUT, MY POINT IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT WAS THAT NOT TO DO WITH MY BELIEF IN BLOCKCHAIN. I was literally just trying to point out, from a journalistic standpoint, that it was odd they made no mention of anything to do with blockchain / DLT. Seriously, I feel like one of the most damaging things to the space as a whole is that it's almost impossible to find a level-headed conversation about it.
  - nix23 6y ago
    >Seriously, I feel like one of the most damaging things to the space as a whole is that it's almost impossible to find a level-headed conversation about it. Just because you think that someone has to be for or against it, why not see it as plus and minus like every technology?
artfulhippo 6y ago
The Atlantic is an institution with a storied history and strong reputation. The blockchain is a wild west known for (at best) overpromising and underdelivering and (at worst) pump-and-dumps, fraud, and black-hat hacking. If they mention a blockchain project, it's basically like sending some of their audience straight to Binance to get rekt. Do you see why it's not a slam dunk for them to shoutout some project that's passionately trying (and unlikely) to solve these hard problems?
- carterklein13 6y ago
  What...? I'm well aware of what The Atlantic is. People aren't (or shouldn't be) using it to guide how they spend their money.
  - artfulhippo 6y ago
    The missing concept is trust. Blockchains are ideally trustless. Media brands are trustful. In a high-trust environment, a mention is an implied endorsement. If the Atlantic wanted to mention a blockchain project without encouraging their readers to invest, it would need to explicitly criticize it in the same piece. This may seem weird but it’s how it is.
    - carterklein13 6y ago
      Interesting - I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm no journalist, so it just struck as a surprising omission. But, that being said, I have to imagine this would strike many other people (certainly not most, but a large amount) as a noticeable omission as well. You're saying it's more just in their best interest, as a large and reputable source, to risk potentially bothering that small group in order to keep their hands clean from inadvertently endorsing anything?
      - artfulhippo 6y ago
        Ya there is an asymmetry for sure. If you already know about projects deep down the rabbit hole, you can go to their website/github/chain explorer/chat and do your own research. But if you don’t know anything except that bitcoin is darknet money, the first mention of e.g. “smart contracts” may lead you down the rabbit hole... I think that everyone who gets into distributed systems by reading news stories about blockchain goes through a “holy s* this is revolutionary!” phase, and for too many people that means buying tokens without performing due diligence.

nix23 6y ago

>nor did I say that Ethereum / IPFS provide any value. Not true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15367531 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15367531 Bitcoin: https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-paper-pirate-takes-bitcoin-donations https://www.coindesk.com/blackballed-by-paypal-scientific-pa... https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/26/how-bitcoin-and-wikileaks-saved-each-other/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerhuang/2019/04/26/how-bitco...

carterklein13 6y ago
Okay, jeez, I can't win here. The second you start to advocate for blockchain or mention its potential utility, people will glom on and mock you for being a pipe dreaming gambler. The second you start to advocate against it or mention its overvaluation, people will glom on and mock you for your bootlicking close-mindedness. Personally, I believe in blockchain. I think Ethereum and IPFS may one day be hugely successful. I own ETH, BTC, and a few other coins that I do believe in but also would not be surprised / upset if they went to $0.00 tomorrow. Yes, I know that's gambling. BUT, MY POINT IN MY ORIGINAL COMMENT WAS THAT NOT TO DO WITH MY BELIEF IN BLOCKCHAIN. I was literally just trying to point out, from a journalistic standpoint, that it was odd they made no mention of anything to do with blockchain / DLT. Seriously, I feel like one of the most damaging things to the space as a whole is that it's almost impossible to find a level-headed conversation about it.
- nix23 6y ago
  >Seriously, I feel like one of the most damaging things to the space as a whole is that it's almost impossible to find a level-headed conversation about it. Just because you think that someone has to be for or against it, why not see it as plus and minus like every technology?

artfulhippo 6y ago

The Atlantic is an institution with a storied history and strong reputation. The blockchain is a wild west known for (at best) overpromising and underdelivering and (at worst) pump-and-dumps, fraud, and black-hat hacking. If they mention a blockchain project, it's basically like sending some of their audience straight to Binance to get rekt. Do you see why it's not a slam dunk for them to shoutout some project that's passionately trying (and unlikely) to solve these hard problems?

carterklein13 6y ago
What...? I'm well aware of what The Atlantic is. People aren't (or shouldn't be) using it to guide how they spend their money.
- artfulhippo 6y ago
  The missing concept is trust. Blockchains are ideally trustless. Media brands are trustful. In a high-trust environment, a mention is an implied endorsement. If the Atlantic wanted to mention a blockchain project without encouraging their readers to invest, it would need to explicitly criticize it in the same piece. This may seem weird but it’s how it is.
  - carterklein13 6y ago
    Interesting - I hadn't thought about it that way. I'm no journalist, so it just struck as a surprising omission. But, that being said, I have to imagine this would strike many other people (certainly not most, but a large amount) as a noticeable omission as well. You're saying it's more just in their best interest, as a large and reputable source, to risk potentially bothering that small group in order to keep their hands clean from inadvertently endorsing anything?
    - artfulhippo 6y ago
      Ya there is an asymmetry for sure. If you already know about projects deep down the rabbit hole, you can go to their website/github/chain explorer/chat and do your own research. But if you don’t know anything except that bitcoin is darknet money, the first mention of e.g. “smart contracts” may lead you down the rabbit hole... I think that everyone who gets into distributed systems by reading news stories about blockchain goes through a “holy s* this is revolutionary!” phase, and for too many people that means buying tokens without performing due diligence.