4 ms·

Give me three links to compelling and non-trivial things in the cryptocurrency ecosystem that are: (1) not just the original simple payment use case, as that w

by api 5y ago

Give me three links to compelling and non-trivial things in the cryptocurrency ecosystem that are: (1) not just the original simple payment use case, as that was always there. (2) is not self-referential to the crypto ecosystem, but something useful for doing things entirely outside it. (3) is not a vehicle for speculation, gambling, or other kinds of fluff or fraud. I’ve asked this for years on many other forums and have yet to see a single thing that meets all those criteria that I or anyone I know would actually use. It’s been 13 years since Bitcoin. Show me something I should care about. For the Internet I could have sent you thousands of examples of such things a few months after the first public ISP appeared. DARPAnet and the other predecessors of the Internet were immediately useful in countless ways that were not self-referential. Self-referentialness is a huge general bullshit red flag of mine. It’s also a characteristic of pseudoscience and pseudo-profound bullshit in the realm of philosophy. Real things look outward from themselves. Bullshit is self-referential. Edit: a lot of conventional finance outside basic banking and venture investing also fails the above test. I am not defending financial capitalism. On the contrary I see cryptocurrency as a vector allowing the financial capitalist cancer to infect tech.

space_rock 5y ago
There is nothing significant. Maybe timestamping documents on the Bitcoin blockchain. Otherwise only use for the technology is payments
- api 5y ago
  The payments use case has some utility for sure. Opponents of cryptocurrency over-argue their case when they say it has absolutely no utility. The problem is that this one use case is not sufficient to make its present valuation or the cost of PoW anywhere near rational. The volume of actual commerce could probably support no more than 10% of current valuation and cost, and that is generous. I suspect the number is more like 2%. The valuation wasn’t that unreasonable until 2017 when all hell broke loose. Current valuation is batshit insane. Some of the tech also has value and does contain some novel ideas. Some of these could be useful elsewhere.
mthoms 5y ago
So, the bar you've established is arguably the single greatest invention of the past 50 years? Sheesh, there really is no pleasing some people. >For the Internet I could have sent you thousands of examples of such things a few months after the first public ISP appeared. DARPAnet and the other predecessors of the Internet were immediately useful in countless ways... As stated in the previous thread, I strongly disagree. Nerds like us found it useful, nearly everyone else found it clunky and boring [0]. Here's further context, with the benefit of hindsight: > ... in many ways, Cliff Stoll wasn't wrong. The Internet really did suck then, and it really was a huckster's paradise. But the fatal flaw in his argument was his assumption that it was never going to get any better. [1] Sound familiar? I'm not equating Bitcoin with the early Internet. That's apples to oranges. I'm only disputing your emphatic (based on the previous thread) claim that the early Internet was useful or interesting to anything beyond a relatively small group of people. That was true up until the late 90's (internet "age" at that time ~ 16-17 years). I lived through that era.... the way you're describing it sounds a lot like revisionist history to me. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306 https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirv... [1] https://www.newsweek.com/lets-talk-about-1995-newsweek-piece-says-internet-will-fail-210278 https://www.newsweek.com/lets-talk-about-1995-newsweek-piece...
- Daishiman 5y ago
  > So, the bar you've established is arguably the single greatest invention of the past 50 years? The bar was _three_ useful, practical, ideas. I lived through the era too, and while critics we saying how it won't be a panacea of anything, many of us were actually _living_ it.
miloignis 5y ago
I've only been vaguely following cryptocurrency for the last few years after messing with it a while back, but I think the Ethereum Name System should count as one of your 3 requested compelling cases. Trustless, decentralized DNS with pretty much perfectly fair auctions. No messing with registrars, or having it taken away or censored by a government, or being front-run by GoDaddy. It was always one of the coolest uses I saw, and an example I always give to explain why smart contracts are useful. https://ens.domains/ https://ens.domains/
- api 5y ago
  I guess I’ll take it. Honestly I think there are a lot more potential uses like that but they have not been explored because speculation and gambling have sucked all the air out of the room.
t0mbstone 5y ago
Why isn't the original simple payment use case not compelling enough? Why does currency have to ALSO do all this other stuff? Why can't it just be... money? My dream for crypto is to one day have a safe place to put my money where it: 1. Can't be lost or stolen 2. Can't be tracked or taxed without consent 3. Is stable and holds its relative value globally, regardless of government or private influence 4. Is instantaneous to transact 5. Can handle millions of transactions per second, so it can truly operate on a global scale 6. Is free to use 7. Can be easily and cheaply converted into other currencies As far as I know, there are zero crypto projects that meet all of these requirements, but there are a number of them that have been iterating towards these goals. I believe we will eventually end up with the dream being realized, but these are all hard problems to solve and it might take a while.
- api 5y ago
  The problem is that cryptocurrency is terrible money because it's hyperdeflationary, or at least the most popular coins are. Bitcoin is far more deflationary than gold since with gold you can't lose your key and render your gold non-existent. We don't even know how much Bitcoin has been lost to "breakage." The insanely deflationary nature of these currencies makes them prone to wild swings in value, which is not something you want in money. It also attracts a lot of Ponzi schemers and get rich quick types.
  - t0mbstone 5y ago
    Oh, trust me, I’ve been saying Bitcoin is fundamentally broken since day one. That doesn’t mean all crypto coins are scams though. There are a number of stable coins that are in development that look really interesting, but a lot of them suffer from various faults. We still haven’t figured out the perfect coin yet, but I do believe it’s only a matter of time.

by api 5y ago

space_rock 5y ago

There is nothing significant. Maybe timestamping documents on the Bitcoin blockchain. Otherwise only use for the technology is payments

api 5y ago
The payments use case has some utility for sure. Opponents of cryptocurrency over-argue their case when they say it has absolutely no utility. The problem is that this one use case is not sufficient to make its present valuation or the cost of PoW anywhere near rational. The volume of actual commerce could probably support no more than 10% of current valuation and cost, and that is generous. I suspect the number is more like 2%. The valuation wasn’t that unreasonable until 2017 when all hell broke loose. Current valuation is batshit insane. Some of the tech also has value and does contain some novel ideas. Some of these could be useful elsewhere.

mthoms 5y ago

So, the bar you've established is arguably the single greatest invention of the past 50 years? Sheesh, there really is no pleasing some people. >For the Internet I could have sent you thousands of examples of such things a few months after the first public ISP appeared. DARPAnet and the other predecessors of the Internet were immediately useful in countless ways... As stated in the previous thread, I strongly disagree. Nerds like us found it useful, nearly everyone else found it clunky and boring [0]. Here's further context, with the benefit of hindsight: > ... in many ways, Cliff Stoll wasn't wrong. The Internet really did suck then, and it really was a huckster's paradise. But the fatal flaw in his argument was his assumption that it was never going to get any better. [1] Sound familiar? I'm not equating Bitcoin with the early Internet. That's apples to oranges. I'm only disputing your emphatic (based on the previous thread) claim that the early Internet was useful or interesting to anything beyond a relatively small group of people. That was true up until the late 90's (internet "age" at that time ~ 16-17 years). I lived through that era.... the way you're describing it sounds a lot like revisionist history to me. [0] https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirvana-185306 https://www.newsweek.com/clifford-stoll-why-web-wont-be-nirv... [1] https://www.newsweek.com/lets-talk-about-1995-newsweek-piece-says-internet-will-fail-210278 https://www.newsweek.com/lets-talk-about-1995-newsweek-piece...

Daishiman 5y ago
> So, the bar you've established is arguably the single greatest invention of the past 50 years? The bar was _three_ useful, practical, ideas. I lived through the era too, and while critics we saying how it won't be a panacea of anything, many of us were actually _living_ it.

miloignis 5y ago

I've only been vaguely following cryptocurrency for the last few years after messing with it a while back, but I think the Ethereum Name System should count as one of your 3 requested compelling cases. Trustless, decentralized DNS with pretty much perfectly fair auctions. No messing with registrars, or having it taken away or censored by a government, or being front-run by GoDaddy. It was always one of the coolest uses I saw, and an example I always give to explain why smart contracts are useful. https://ens.domains/ https://ens.domains/

api 5y ago
I guess I’ll take it. Honestly I think there are a lot more potential uses like that but they have not been explored because speculation and gambling have sucked all the air out of the room.

t0mbstone 5y ago

Why isn't the original simple payment use case not compelling enough? Why does currency have to ALSO do all this other stuff? Why can't it just be... money? My dream for crypto is to one day have a safe place to put my money where it: 1. Can't be lost or stolen 2. Can't be tracked or taxed without consent 3. Is stable and holds its relative value globally, regardless of government or private influence 4. Is instantaneous to transact 5. Can handle millions of transactions per second, so it can truly operate on a global scale 6. Is free to use 7. Can be easily and cheaply converted into other currencies As far as I know, there are zero crypto projects that meet all of these requirements, but there are a number of them that have been iterating towards these goals. I believe we will eventually end up with the dream being realized, but these are all hard problems to solve and it might take a while.

api 5y ago
The problem is that cryptocurrency is terrible money because it's hyperdeflationary, or at least the most popular coins are. Bitcoin is far more deflationary than gold since with gold you can't lose your key and render your gold non-existent. We don't even know how much Bitcoin has been lost to "breakage." The insanely deflationary nature of these currencies makes them prone to wild swings in value, which is not something you want in money. It also attracts a lot of Ponzi schemers and get rich quick types.
- t0mbstone 5y ago
  Oh, trust me, I’ve been saying Bitcoin is fundamentally broken since day one. That doesn’t mean all crypto coins are scams though. There are a number of stable coins that are in development that look really interesting, but a lot of them suffer from various faults. We still haven’t figured out the perfect coin yet, but I do believe it’s only a matter of time.