5 ms·

If I've learned anything from being wrong about crypto-tech for years, it's that proving negatives like this is really really hard, and it's typically the wrong

If I've learned anything from being wrong about crypto-tech for years, it's that proving negatives like this is really really hard, and it's typically the wrong way to approach a new technology. There's really nothing to gain from nay-saying a new space like this, tbh. Much better to take the attitude of "hmm, I'm skeptical, but let's see where this goes, let me try it a bit, someone convince me why X is useful." Because if you're wrong, you'll find out sooner.

andrew_v4 5y ago
> There's really nothing to gain from nay-saying a new space like this, tbh. Dismissing a new technology is not helpful. But I think it's valuable for people that understand the tech to debunk proposed uses of technology that are not things the tech actually does. This is closer to how I see the article. In what I see as the current big 3 - quantum computing, AI, and blockchain - there is a parallel imaginary business world claiming things they can do that at best are misunderstandings and at worst are effectively scams to get consulting money. People who understood what the tech is actually doing should not shy away from clarifying what it does and make it harder for the snake oil salesmen to do their thing.
leifg 5y ago
I really tried that. But to this day I have not heard a convincing argument for what Blockchain is useful for beyond cryptocurrencies. And when I see the discussions about Blockchain in the general public nobody asks for proof for statements like "It creates trust. It's safe, it's the future, etc ...". So by taking a rather radical stance ("it will not revolutionize anything") you at least create a counter narrative.
- russdpale 5y ago
  Its biggest use case has and always will be accountability.
  - 07121941 5y ago
    I'm not familiar with any of this stuff other than surface level reading. Can you expand on use cases? Just interested
Noos 5y ago
its not proving negatives; blockchain needs to prove why on earth it's better than what already exists in the publishing space. I don't see why a smart contract in this specific instance is better than using the traditional legal system. The article gives plenty of good reasons why not; its up to blockchain people to tell us why to bother in the first place.
mdoms 5y ago
Blockchains have been around for 13 years now and have yet to show a real use case beyond a bogus speculative "asset" with no intrinsic value.
- doggosphere 5y ago
  By "bogus speculative asset", you mean "store of value asset", unless you are also implying that the $10tr gold market, including the gold stored by central banks across the world, are also bogus speculative vehicles.

andrew_v4 5y ago

> There's really nothing to gain from nay-saying a new space like this, tbh. Dismissing a new technology is not helpful. But I think it's valuable for people that understand the tech to debunk proposed uses of technology that are not things the tech actually does. This is closer to how I see the article. In what I see as the current big 3 - quantum computing, AI, and blockchain - there is a parallel imaginary business world claiming things they can do that at best are misunderstandings and at worst are effectively scams to get consulting money. People who understood what the tech is actually doing should not shy away from clarifying what it does and make it harder for the snake oil salesmen to do their thing.

leifg 5y ago

I really tried that. But to this day I have not heard a convincing argument for what Blockchain is useful for beyond cryptocurrencies. And when I see the discussions about Blockchain in the general public nobody asks for proof for statements like "It creates trust. It's safe, it's the future, etc ...". So by taking a rather radical stance ("it will not revolutionize anything") you at least create a counter narrative.

russdpale 5y ago
Its biggest use case has and always will be accountability.
- 07121941 5y ago
  I'm not familiar with any of this stuff other than surface level reading. Can you expand on use cases? Just interested

Noos 5y ago

its not proving negatives; blockchain needs to prove why on earth it's better than what already exists in the publishing space. I don't see why a smart contract in this specific instance is better than using the traditional legal system. The article gives plenty of good reasons why not; its up to blockchain people to tell us why to bother in the first place.

mdoms 5y ago

Blockchains have been around for 13 years now and have yet to show a real use case beyond a bogus speculative "asset" with no intrinsic value.

doggosphere 5y ago
By "bogus speculative asset", you mean "store of value asset", unless you are also implying that the $10tr gold market, including the gold stored by central banks across the world, are also bogus speculative vehicles.