5 ms·

> git is a form of blockchain. Does this look like a valid argument? Where is the distributed consensus that is at the heart of blockchain? git will just cause

> git is a form of blockchain. Does this look like a valid argument? Where is the distributed consensus that is at the heart of blockchain? git will just cause conflicts leading to prejudiced manual intervention. I also don't see a great reason against its energy use as the nature of being fair is to make the competition as useless as possible or else it will be unfair for some people with financial incentives leading to unbalanced distributions in certain industry sectors. But at the cost of that, it doesn't put anyone as a dictator, which is worth more. (As the public agrees with its price action.) At least some miners are trying to use cleaner energies at this point, so it's an improvement.

jraph 5y ago
I'm not speaking about a particular comment and responded to your generic assertion, "I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN". But okay, I'll answer to your question. >> git is a form of blockchain. > Does this look like a valid argument? It looks like a claim you don't agree with. I don't agree with it neither but I can see where the OP is coming from and I see no bad intent. I found their comment very reasonable and well-balanced even if I disagree. You seem to see it as an attack against Bitcoin, and you seem to be the one who is involved emotionally into this topic. By the way, notice how we were speaking about blockchains in general and not Bitcoin, you introduced Bitcoin (though I agree that Bitcoin is the elephant in the room when speaking about blockchains). > I also don't see a great reason against its energy use I intentionally and specifically did not enter this discussion by not giving any argument. This is boring, there are a lot of detailed discussions about this here on HN already.
- woofie11 5y ago
  I certainly meant no attack on Bitcoin. I don't even have an opinion on Bitcoin. I do have a mild beef with many of the other uses of blockchain technologies, but bad uses don't invalidate a technology.

jraph 5y ago

I'm not speaking about a particular comment and responded to your generic assertion, "I'm amazed at the quality of posts in HN". But okay, I'll answer to your question. >> git is a form of blockchain. > Does this look like a valid argument? It looks like a claim you don't agree with. I don't agree with it neither but I can see where the OP is coming from and I see no bad intent. I found their comment very reasonable and well-balanced even if I disagree. You seem to see it as an attack against Bitcoin, and you seem to be the one who is involved emotionally into this topic. By the way, notice how we were speaking about blockchains in general and not Bitcoin, you introduced Bitcoin (though I agree that Bitcoin is the elephant in the room when speaking about blockchains). > I also don't see a great reason against its energy use I intentionally and specifically did not enter this discussion by not giving any argument. This is boring, there are a lot of detailed discussions about this here on HN already.

woofie11 5y ago
I certainly meant no attack on Bitcoin. I don't even have an opinion on Bitcoin. I do have a mild beef with many of the other uses of blockchain technologies, but bad uses don't invalidate a technology.