3 ms·

I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. Many dismiss

I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. Many dismiss such work as totally worthless. I suspect such dismissive types lack the combination of deep technical ability and profound economic intuition that made the Collison brothers wealthy. Or maybe it’s just that they don’t care to think these things through. Like PG says in his exploration of the aphorism “a word to the wise is sufficient:” “Understanding all the implications — even the inconvenient implications — of what someone tells you is a subset of resourcefulness. It's conversational resourcefulness.” http://www.paulgraham.com/word.html http://www.paulgraham.com/word.html

imtringued 6y ago
>I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. If you are so shocked then please explain why Bitcoin miners refused to increase the transactions per block to a level that is suitable for Bitcoin? It's literally a configuration flag they have to change and the environmentalists and people against power waste would be happy and you could tell them to shut up. The people using Bitcoin as money would also be happy. Everyone would be happy except some puritans that insist on a specific block size. The reality is that no amount of economic intuition and deep technical ability can explain this and it's not making any neo "Collison brothers" types wealthy. It also isn't a problem of not thinking things through. It's not a matter of groking economic logic because there is literally no economic argument in favor of restricting transactions per block. It's worthless because everyone that wanted to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose has already left and only those who are in it for the bubbling behavior have stayed. I will even admit that after understanding the long term trend of Bitcoin (not the xth bubble that is currently occuring) I would buy it, but again, only for speculation. It's worthless, as a currency, precisely because its deflationary, expensive and slow to transact, a tax nightmare because of capital gains and the fact that nobody accepts it. So yes, it definitively is worthless. Just because some tech dudes bet on price increases doesn't mean it isn't worthless. I'm more shocked by the number of people who fail to grok the economic logic and still engage in correct behavior. They make the mistake of equating the power consumption as necessary to process a certain amount of transactions and they are definitively wrong, however their judgment is still right. Bitcoin wastes too much power for the little value it provides. They don't have any right to be worthy of your criticism but yet they do, if you listened to them your crappy little currency would be better off and that's why your argument is on very thin ice. I have an absolute disdain for dishonesty. Own and admit your mistakes instead of pretending that the other side is wrong.
- melolife 6y ago
  > If you are so shocked then please explain why Bitcoin miners refused to increase the transactions per block to a level that is suitable for Bitcoin? I'm no Bitcoin maximalist, but this problem cannot be solved by increasing storage requirements in a linear fashion to accommodate more transactions, as then you are trading one problem for another. Case in point Bitcoin Cash which, (if actually used) with a block size of 32MB could grow at 1.6 TB/year, prohibiting most individuals from running a node. There's also the problem analogous to road planning where adding lanes does not decrease congestion, because the level of congestion than exists represents what people are willing to tolerate before giving up on driving. That being said wrt your question there's also an element of greed in that there's money to be made selling level 2 solutions, but it's not as clear cut as the big block crowd would have it.
- ghgdynb1 6y ago
  If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry. I don't intend to use that quote in a bad-faith way; it's just the truth. If you'd like to open-mindedly consider the alternate position, the writing of Balaji Srinivasan might not be a horrible place to start. It seems like you disagree with all the other points I make as well. Unfortunately the same time constraints apply; I can only encourage you to mull them over. https://balajis.com/and-what-has-the-blockchain-ever-done-for-us/ https://balajis.com/and-what-has-the-blockchain-ever-done-fo...
dmitriid 6y ago
> I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. Literally none of them have any logic behind them other than "let's add blockchain at the end, and ask investors for money". > Many dismiss such work as totally worthless. It is absolutely, 100% entirely worthless with no exceptions. > I suspect such dismissive types lack the combination of deep technical ability and profound economic intuition that made the Collison brothers wealthy. Stripe actually does provide a useful, and a used service with a well-defined and understood economic model. > Understanding all the implications — even the inconvenient implications — of what someone tells you is a subset of resourcefulness. It's conversational resourcefulness Yes, And the implications of bitcoin are simple: it's a useless wasteful technology that still hasn't found any useful application, or an application that cannot be achieved faster and more securely by other means.

imtringued 6y ago

>I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. If you are so shocked then please explain why Bitcoin miners refused to increase the transactions per block to a level that is suitable for Bitcoin? It's literally a configuration flag they have to change and the environmentalists and people against power waste would be happy and you could tell them to shut up. The people using Bitcoin as money would also be happy. Everyone would be happy except some puritans that insist on a specific block size. The reality is that no amount of economic intuition and deep technical ability can explain this and it's not making any neo "Collison brothers" types wealthy. It also isn't a problem of not thinking things through. It's not a matter of groking economic logic because there is literally no economic argument in favor of restricting transactions per block. It's worthless because everyone that wanted to use Bitcoin for its intended purpose has already left and only those who are in it for the bubbling behavior have stayed. I will even admit that after understanding the long term trend of Bitcoin (not the xth bubble that is currently occuring) I would buy it, but again, only for speculation. It's worthless, as a currency, precisely because its deflationary, expensive and slow to transact, a tax nightmare because of capital gains and the fact that nobody accepts it. So yes, it definitively is worthless. Just because some tech dudes bet on price increases doesn't mean it isn't worthless. I'm more shocked by the number of people who fail to grok the economic logic and still engage in correct behavior. They make the mistake of equating the power consumption as necessary to process a certain amount of transactions and they are definitively wrong, however their judgment is still right. Bitcoin wastes too much power for the little value it provides. They don't have any right to be worthy of your criticism but yet they do, if you listened to them your crappy little currency would be better off and that's why your argument is on very thin ice. I have an absolute disdain for dishonesty. Own and admit your mistakes instead of pretending that the other side is wrong.

melolife 6y ago
> If you are so shocked then please explain why Bitcoin miners refused to increase the transactions per block to a level that is suitable for Bitcoin? I'm no Bitcoin maximalist, but this problem cannot be solved by increasing storage requirements in a linear fashion to accommodate more transactions, as then you are trading one problem for another. Case in point Bitcoin Cash which, (if actually used) with a block size of 32MB could grow at 1.6 TB/year, prohibiting most individuals from running a node. There's also the problem analogous to road planning where adding lanes does not decrease congestion, because the level of congestion than exists represents what people are willing to tolerate before giving up on driving. That being said wrt your question there's also an element of greed in that there's money to be made selling level 2 solutions, but it's not as clear cut as the big block crowd would have it.
ghgdynb1 6y ago
If you don't believe me or don't get it, I don't have the time to try to convince you, sorry. I don't intend to use that quote in a bad-faith way; it's just the truth. If you'd like to open-mindedly consider the alternate position, the writing of Balaji Srinivasan might not be a horrible place to start. It seems like you disagree with all the other points I make as well. Unfortunately the same time constraints apply; I can only encourage you to mull them over. https://balajis.com/and-what-has-the-blockchain-ever-done-for-us/ https://balajis.com/and-what-has-the-blockchain-ever-done-fo...

dmitriid 6y ago

> I’m truly shocked by the number of people who totally fail to grok the economic logic behind a lot of the projects being built on blockchain tech. Literally none of them have any logic behind them other than "let's add blockchain at the end, and ask investors for money". > Many dismiss such work as totally worthless. It is absolutely, 100% entirely worthless with no exceptions. > I suspect such dismissive types lack the combination of deep technical ability and profound economic intuition that made the Collison brothers wealthy. Stripe actually does provide a useful, and a used service with a well-defined and understood economic model. > Understanding all the implications — even the inconvenient implications — of what someone tells you is a subset of resourcefulness. It's conversational resourcefulness Yes, And the implications of bitcoin are simple: it's a useless wasteful technology that still hasn't found any useful application, or an application that cannot be achieved faster and more securely by other means.