4 ms·

> There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP

> There are numerous configurations, networks, and commercial structures that can be created for NFT offerings that can mitigate "problems" described in the OP and accommodate for different tradeoffs. Ah, yes. The goid old "might", the adage as old as the whole blockchain itself. Translation: "will painstakingly re-invent all the attributes of what real world needs, and already has, and doesn't need blockchain in the least". More eloquently put in these articles: https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-come-up-with-a-use-case-for-blockchain-ee98c180100 https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/ten-years-in-nobody-has-c...

TheColorYellow 6y ago
This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here: https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/01/Property-Audrey-Chaing-and-Kai-Stinchcombe.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjupsPd2p3vAhWXMN4KHQiqB5EQFjABegQIBBAK&usg=AOvVaw1vMBwmJh1AwA2_uD0H4lnY https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/0... If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain I can genuinely understand why and it makes sense. Lots of other areas to invest personal time and effort in.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here 404 page not found for me > If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? What would those values and hypotheses be?
  - TheColorYellow 6y ago
    Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. > So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? Of course. This is a nascent and emerging market. To act as if this is anything but a hypothesis on what may be valuable is a lie. This is true of every emergent market ever. > What would those values and hypotheses be? See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols and the hypothesis is these values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. Did you read the file you're referencing? Let me quote it for you (emphasis mine): --- start quote --- Permissioned blockchains as a datastore Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains. Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies they will employ, and let the state’s procurement officials select the most competitive bid. If blockchain offers an advantage, they will be well positioned to win in the marketplace. Unpermissioned or semi-permissioned blockchains as a datastore ..., recall that the most complex and burdensome aspect of maintaining a non-Torrens ledger is preventing false data from entering the system. Absent tremendous progress in digital identity, we believe the types of title fraud commonly seen in the lived experience of the several states would be increased by such a system. --- end quote --- The only place he "recommends" blockchain is in (paraphrasing): "governments should not be afraid of new technologies, and new technologies like blockchain should also be proposed on equal footing as other technologies. However, all these technologies should be evaluated whether they have the potential to make search, record validation, or detection of error or fraud cheaper, faster, or more accurate" > See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. Others have already answered to that. > The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols Technology on its own has very little merit. > These values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. Which values? If you're talking about "this is the proof of ownership", the entire value falls apart at the point of data entry (see the articles I linked). > As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data. Riiiight. And what will stop anyone from not accepting your immutable ledger representation of a user account in a service? Just the fact that it's on a blockchain? In the form of NFT? How will this help you if you still can't access any services?
      - TheColorYellow 6y ago
        He's still recommending blockchain. Four years after writing the initial article, you think it'd be easier just to say its worthless...but he didn't. There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere.
qqii 6y ago
A new medium requires reinventing and making explicit "real world" constructs. The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems without making clear the explicit tradeoffs. I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation. A "real world use case" is not well defined.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems For a technology that's frequently hailed as the best new thing since sliced bread, it's quite telling that it can't exhibit a single of the best parts of current systems. And it's replete with parts that are worse than even the worst parts of the current systems. > I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation. Of course I would. And the articles argues as well, successfully. Because for the absolute vast majority of these real-world companies anything they do can be done better, faster, and more efficiently without the use of blockchain. And if the are not busy scamming people, they are busy re-implementing, often poorly, those "best parts of current systems" that you're so quick to dismiss.
  - qqii 6y ago
    Blockchains are definitely oversold and overhyped but they do make improvements in certain areas. It's like discounting TOR just because steaming youtube is a lesser experience. Their use of consensus mechanisms make what was implicit explicit. Their global nature is truly without borders. Specific cryptocurrencies are mathematically private and more censorship resistant. Blockchain for the most part isn't ready for the vast majority of people, but discounting it entirely seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not everything needs blockchain but for the things that do they really do. Real world companies also make tradeoffs, often a single point of trust (the company) and implicit assumptions or state. The current systems that work are great and I don't want to dismiss them at all, but there are specific cryptocurrencies that currently serve some specific needs better. In future I'd imagine there are other ways to take advantage of DHT to serve even more needs better.
keymone 6y ago
ah yes, another bitcoin obituary, there's hundreds of them on the internet posted quite regularly, ever since bitcoin's inception.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  It's not an obituary, and you'd know it if you'd bothered to read it. It very aptly describes the perpetual state of bitcoin in particular, and of blockchains in general.
  - keymone 6y ago
    I read it, it’s an article from 2017 proclaiming bitcoin is worthless for a payment system while it is now 2021 and amount of value exchanged on bitcoin is more than ever. Author is clueless and the article is worth nothing.
    - dmitriid 6y ago
      > it’s an article from 2017 proclaiming bitcoin is worthless for a payment system It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. > it is now 2021 and amount of value exchanged on bitcoin is more than ever. Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (you know, for goods and services) are a very, very, very tiny fraction of exchanges. > Author is clueless and the article is worth nothing. Ah. So you didn't actually read it. Or you'd try to address the authors' points (or link to an article that addresses his points) like: - The key feature of a new payment system is the confidence that if the goods aren’t as described you’ll get your money back (bitcoin has none, and is busy reinvents centralized institutions to help with that) - The government-backed banking system provides FDIC guarantees, reversibility of ACH, identity verification, audit standards, and an investigation system when things go wrong. Bitcoin, by design, has none of these things. - In terms of micropayments, people enthuse that bitcoin transactions are free and instant. Actually, they take about eight minutes to clear and cost about four cents to process. <- This is now outdated. It's significantly worse now. Median confirmation time is ~10 minutes (and was as high as 25 minutes just a few months ago [1]) and transaction fees ar $13 to $30[2] ^ And that's just payments The article and its sequel go on to discuss the issues with smart contracts, distributed storage, computing, and messaging, authentity verification and so on. [1] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time [2] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction

TheColorYellow 6y ago

This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here: https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/01/Property-Audrey-Chaing-and-Kai-Stinchcombe.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjupsPd2p3vAhWXMN4KHQiqB5EQFjABegQIBBAK&usg=AOvVaw1vMBwmJh1AwA2_uD0H4lnY https://www.govops.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2020/0... If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain I can genuinely understand why and it makes sense. Lots of other areas to invest personal time and effort in.

dmitriid 6y ago
> This same author can be seen here recommending blockchain technologies to the CA government here 404 page not found for me > If you're not willing to consider the hypothesis of value proposed by blockchain So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? What would those values and hypotheses be?
- TheColorYellow 6y ago
  Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. > So, not even the value proposed by blockchain but the hypothesis of the value? Of course. This is a nascent and emerging market. To act as if this is anything but a hypothesis on what may be valuable is a lie. This is true of every emergent market ever. > What would those values and hypotheses be? See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols and the hypothesis is these values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > Search "govops ca kai stinchcombe" and you'll see the doc. Did you read the file you're referencing? Let me quote it for you (emphasis mine): --- start quote --- Permissioned blockchains as a datastore Solutions can be built on either open source datastores (like mysql or postgres), on proprietary datastores (Oracle), or on blockchains. Our position on this topic is that the proof is in the pudding: let the bidders describe the system they can build and the costs, let them choose the underlying technologies they will employ, and let the state’s procurement officials select the most competitive bid. If blockchain offers an advantage, they will be well positioned to win in the marketplace. Unpermissioned or semi-permissioned blockchains as a datastore ..., recall that the most complex and burdensome aspect of maintaining a non-Torrens ledger is preventing false data from entering the system. Absent tremendous progress in digital identity, we believe the types of title fraud commonly seen in the lived experience of the several states would be increased by such a system. --- end quote --- The only place he "recommends" blockchain is in (paraphrasing): "governments should not be afraid of new technologies, and new technologies like blockchain should also be proposed on equal footing as other technologies. However, all these technologies should be evaluated whether they have the potential to make search, record validation, or detection of error or fraud cheaper, faster, or more accurate" > See my other comments in this same thread if you'd genuinely like to engage in discussion. Others have already answered to that. > The value is derived from the characteristics of the network protocols Technology on its own has very little merit. > These values are difficult to achieve without the protocol and that they will come to be highly desired. Which values? If you're talking about "this is the proof of ownership", the entire value falls apart at the point of data entry (see the articles I linked). > As a simple example, take the oft common hate for Google accounts being deserviced. A globally accessible, immutable ledger representation of a user account could be a theroetic start in the direction of mitigating the problems of thirs-party owned account data. Riiiight. And what will stop anyone from not accepting your immutable ledger representation of a user account in a service? Just the fact that it's on a blockchain? In the form of NFT? How will this help you if you still can't access any services?
    - TheColorYellow 6y ago
      He's still recommending blockchain. Four years after writing the initial article, you think it'd be easier just to say its worthless...but he didn't. There's quite a bit of spirited discussion regarding these points elsewhere.

qqii 6y ago

A new medium requires reinventing and making explicit "real world" constructs. The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems without making clear the explicit tradeoffs. I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation. A "real world use case" is not well defined.

dmitriid 6y ago
> The article rejects anything worse than the best part of current systems For a technology that's frequently hailed as the best new thing since sliced bread, it's quite telling that it can't exhibit a single of the best parts of current systems. And it's replete with parts that are worse than even the worst parts of the current systems. > I could retort and point to companies actually using blockchain but you can easily argue flaws in their implementation. Of course I would. And the articles argues as well, successfully. Because for the absolute vast majority of these real-world companies anything they do can be done better, faster, and more efficiently without the use of blockchain. And if the are not busy scamming people, they are busy re-implementing, often poorly, those "best parts of current systems" that you're so quick to dismiss.
- qqii 6y ago
  Blockchains are definitely oversold and overhyped but they do make improvements in certain areas. It's like discounting TOR just because steaming youtube is a lesser experience. Their use of consensus mechanisms make what was implicit explicit. Their global nature is truly without borders. Specific cryptocurrencies are mathematically private and more censorship resistant. Blockchain for the most part isn't ready for the vast majority of people, but discounting it entirely seems like throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not everything needs blockchain but for the things that do they really do. Real world companies also make tradeoffs, often a single point of trust (the company) and implicit assumptions or state. The current systems that work are great and I don't want to dismiss them at all, but there are specific cryptocurrencies that currently serve some specific needs better. In future I'd imagine there are other ways to take advantage of DHT to serve even more needs better.

keymone 6y ago

ah yes, another bitcoin obituary, there's hundreds of them on the internet posted quite regularly, ever since bitcoin's inception.

dmitriid 6y ago
It's not an obituary, and you'd know it if you'd bothered to read it. It very aptly describes the perpetual state of bitcoin in particular, and of blockchains in general.
- keymone 6y ago
  I read it, it’s an article from 2017 proclaiming bitcoin is worthless for a payment system while it is now 2021 and amount of value exchanged on bitcoin is more than ever. Author is clueless and the article is worth nothing.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > it’s an article from 2017 proclaiming bitcoin is worthless for a payment system It's clear you didn't even pretend to read it. Or understand all the problems listed. Payments is just a part of the first article. The sequel doesn't even talk about payments. > it is now 2021 and amount of value exchanged on bitcoin is more than ever. Amount of value exchanged on bitcoin !== it's useful for payments. Actual payments (you know, for goods and services) are a very, very, very tiny fraction of exchanges. > Author is clueless and the article is worth nothing. Ah. So you didn't actually read it. Or you'd try to address the authors' points (or link to an article that addresses his points) like: - The key feature of a new payment system is the confidence that if the goods aren’t as described you’ll get your money back (bitcoin has none, and is busy reinvents centralized institutions to help with that) - The government-backed banking system provides FDIC guarantees, reversibility of ACH, identity verification, audit standards, and an investigation system when things go wrong. Bitcoin, by design, has none of these things. - In terms of micropayments, people enthuse that bitcoin transactions are free and instant. Actually, they take about eight minutes to clear and cost about four cents to process. <- This is now outdated. It's significantly worse now. Median confirmation time is ~10 minutes (and was as high as 25 minutes just a few months ago [1]) and transaction fees ar $13 to $30[2] ^ And that's just payments The article and its sequel go on to discuss the issues with smart contracts, distributed storage, computing, and messaging, authentity verification and so on. [1] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time https://www.blockchain.com/charts/median-confirmation-time [2] https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction https://www.blockchain.com/charts/fees-usd-per-transaction