4 ms·

>It’s hard to even communicate about the intellectual center of cryptocurrency, because so much discussion is framed in terms that have no meaning (i.e. “decent

>It’s hard to even communicate about the intellectual center of cryptocurrency, because so much discussion is framed in terms that have no meaning (i.e. “decentralized”, “blockchain”, etc) and the technical obscurantism and mystique is an inescapable and intrinsic part of the investment thesis. I stopped reading here. The writer is obviously a luddite who doesn’t even want to understand the topic, he just wants to smash all the new machines because he is afraid.

leashless 6y ago
He’s really not a Luddite: he’s a ZKSNARK implementer, among other things.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  How is that a preclusion?
grey-area 6y ago
I agree that these terms have a meaning (though hard to pin down), but on the other hand, both blockchains and decentralisation have been proven many times in the past to be of limited use to ordinary people. I don’t need or want a decentralised currency with trustless consensus and irreversible transactions, I’d contend very few need that. There are so many disadvantages that flow from the choices made in Bitcoin as a currency, and many of those choices are inherent to the things people claim are good about it. Try to remove them and you are completely reworking it. Just as one example you can’t have instant confirmations in a fully distributed system which shares a ledger because there are n sources of truth, not one, and eventual consistency is a terrible idea for a currency. In any financial transaction I want to verify the identity of the counterparty, I want to manage risk by having a known third party manage the transaction and disputes, I want instant confirmation and low stable fees and prices, and I certainly don’t want to have any uncertainty (even for minutes) about whether a transaction worked. I too would love a truly supranational currency, but would want a very conservative one with light inflation built in (i.e loses value v. slowly) controlled by a transparent governing board with a financial stake in stability and low fees, decentralised records on the level of institutions, not the entire ledger, and not one which enriches early adopters. For this reason alone I think the built in advantages for early adopters in bitcoin was a terrible mistake - it attracts the wrong kind of people and encourages shilling and irrational exuberance when the value goes up quickly, which is deadly to a real currency.
benlumen 6y ago
https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts.html A luddite? What a ridiculous allegation. Sounds like you stopped reading because your cognitive bias wouldn't let you continue, frankly.
- eurasiantiger 6y ago
  Might be. However, in a world where attention is currency and bad information rife, it is not the reader’s fault if the writer does not express their views clearly enough to warrant attention.
timkam 6y ago
The author is not precise here, but I agree that in the crypto-bro, get-rich-quick world, the meaning of "decentralized" and "blockchain" certainly can be stretched in all kinds of ways. And I think this relates to the problem around cryptocurrencies: its communities are an unhealthy mix of a lot of people who want to make a quick bug, and a few people who are seriously working on the foundations of the technology in a meaningful manner.

leashless 6y ago

He’s really not a Luddite: he’s a ZKSNARK implementer, among other things.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
How is that a preclusion?

grey-area 6y ago

I agree that these terms have a meaning (though hard to pin down), but on the other hand, both blockchains and decentralisation have been proven many times in the past to be of limited use to ordinary people. I don’t need or want a decentralised currency with trustless consensus and irreversible transactions, I’d contend very few need that. There are so many disadvantages that flow from the choices made in Bitcoin as a currency, and many of those choices are inherent to the things people claim are good about it. Try to remove them and you are completely reworking it. Just as one example you can’t have instant confirmations in a fully distributed system which shares a ledger because there are n sources of truth, not one, and eventual consistency is a terrible idea for a currency. In any financial transaction I want to verify the identity of the counterparty, I want to manage risk by having a known third party manage the transaction and disputes, I want instant confirmation and low stable fees and prices, and I certainly don’t want to have any uncertainty (even for minutes) about whether a transaction worked. I too would love a truly supranational currency, but would want a very conservative one with light inflation built in (i.e loses value v. slowly) controlled by a transparent governing board with a financial stake in stability and low fees, decentralised records on the level of institutions, not the entire ledger, and not one which enriches early adopters. For this reason alone I think the built in advantages for early adopters in bitcoin was a terrible mistake - it attracts the wrong kind of people and encourages shilling and irrational exuberance when the value goes up quickly, which is deadly to a real currency.

benlumen 6y ago

https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts.html https://www.stephendiehl.com/posts.html A luddite? What a ridiculous allegation. Sounds like you stopped reading because your cognitive bias wouldn't let you continue, frankly.

eurasiantiger 6y ago
Might be. However, in a world where attention is currency and bad information rife, it is not the reader’s fault if the writer does not express their views clearly enough to warrant attention.

timkam 6y ago

The author is not precise here, but I agree that in the crypto-bro, get-rich-quick world, the meaning of "decentralized" and "blockchain" certainly can be stretched in all kinds of ways. And I think this relates to the problem around cryptocurrencies: its communities are an unhealthy mix of a lot of people who want to make a quick bug, and a few people who are seriously working on the foundations of the technology in a meaningful manner.