4 ms·

This is an opinion piece. Write a rebuttal and post it.

yannoninator 5y ago
What rebuttal? I agree with the post? I just want the common man to see crypto for what it really is with a balanced debate or interview, not just a blog post that only 'nerds' reads as Diehl states. > It’s almost only nerds who read my blog... After all, it would be more credible coming from him than me.
- leifg 5y ago
  > I just want the common man to see crypto for what it really is with a balanced debate or interview, not just a blog post that only 'nerds' reads as Diehl states. I've been following this space for a while and honestly I don't see how a counterpart would actually look like. We had blockchains/crypto for almost 13 years and the only thing that came out of it is a speculative semi-unregulated asset market. Still Forbes, NYT etc... always write articles like "Cryptocurrencies are volatile asset that is doomed to crash, but the underlying blockchain technology is here to say". Without offering any kind of proof for the second part of the statement. Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution. Whenever I bring this up, the response is usually: "We're just at the beginning, this will take a while". For a space that is claiming the disruption of everything it's moving pretty slow.
  - mattdesl 5y ago
    Considering BTC's network uptime has been about 99.9% for over a decade, I'd say the "here to stay" articles may have been relatively accurate? (I don't care much for BTC, though I do feel a narrow scope of its usage will probably persist in some fashion for many more years.) > Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution. The only thing ledger specifies is virtual state and virtual assets (ie: tokens). A simple example of an application that is easier with a smart contract than traditional financial services and a plain old database is an escrow agent for handling a significant sum across hundreds or thousands of global participants (and thus potentially currencies). In practice; a smart contract application built on this may look like a time-constrained Kickstarter campaign, but using a trustless/ownerless escrow contract to accept and manage payments.
    - lern_too_spel 5y ago
      A centralized database can handle the escrow too, and far more efficiently. The only reason decentralized crypto solutions have a head start is that people who work in crypto tend not to care about what is legal.
      - mattdesl 5y ago
        Yet there is a key difference in trust - that a centralized actor (say, Kickstarter) will not mutate their private database, will not go under, and will not fail to meet its promises in how the funds are managed. There is also an ease of use (for developers building these applications), particularly in terms of finances: say, an escrow that holds $1M worth of value and may need to return those funds to 100K donors across the globe should the fundraiser not meet its goals before a set deadline.
        lern_too_spel 5y ago
        Trust works because of legal frameworks. You have to have the same trust that Ethereum won't do another fork, and you have to trust that the smart contract isn't fraudulent. In exactly the same way, the law is what keeps the average person from being fleeced. A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.
        leifg 5y ago
        Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”

What rebuttal? I agree with the post? I just want the common man to see crypto for what it really is with a balanced debate or interview, not just a blog post that only 'nerds' reads as Diehl states. > It’s almost only nerds who read my blog... After all, it would be more credible coming from him than me.

leifg 5y ago
> I just want the common man to see crypto for what it really is with a balanced debate or interview, not just a blog post that only 'nerds' reads as Diehl states. I've been following this space for a while and honestly I don't see how a counterpart would actually look like. We had blockchains/crypto for almost 13 years and the only thing that came out of it is a speculative semi-unregulated asset market. Still Forbes, NYT etc... always write articles like "Cryptocurrencies are volatile asset that is doomed to crash, but the underlying blockchain technology is here to say". Without offering any kind of proof for the second part of the statement. Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution. Whenever I bring this up, the response is usually: "We're just at the beginning, this will take a while". For a space that is claiming the disruption of everything it's moving pretty slow.
- mattdesl 5y ago
  Considering BTC's network uptime has been about 99.9% for over a decade, I'd say the "here to stay" articles may have been relatively accurate? (I don't care much for BTC, though I do feel a narrow scope of its usage will probably persist in some fashion for many more years.) > Show me one blockchain application that has nothing to do with virtual assets that not only turns a profit but is provably more efficient than a database based solution. The only thing ledger specifies is virtual state and virtual assets (ie: tokens). A simple example of an application that is easier with a smart contract than traditional financial services and a plain old database is an escrow agent for handling a significant sum across hundreds or thousands of global participants (and thus potentially currencies). In practice; a smart contract application built on this may look like a time-constrained Kickstarter campaign, but using a trustless/ownerless escrow contract to accept and manage payments.
  - lern_too_spel 5y ago
    A centralized database can handle the escrow too, and far more efficiently. The only reason decentralized crypto solutions have a head start is that people who work in crypto tend not to care about what is legal.
    - mattdesl 5y ago
      Yet there is a key difference in trust - that a centralized actor (say, Kickstarter) will not mutate their private database, will not go under, and will not fail to meet its promises in how the funds are managed. There is also an ease of use (for developers building these applications), particularly in terms of finances: say, an escrow that holds $1M worth of value and may need to return those funds to 100K donors across the globe should the fundraiser not meet its goals before a set deadline.
      - lern_too_spel 5y ago
        Trust works because of legal frameworks. You have to have the same trust that Ethereum won't do another fork, and you have to trust that the smart contract isn't fraudulent. In exactly the same way, the law is what keeps the average person from being fleeced. A central database has far better ease of use for developers than a distributed ledger.
        mattdesl 5y ago
        To some users and developers, the chain/contract is easier, less expensive, and simpler to trust and build upon than the equivalent legal and traditional financial structures on a global scale.
        leifg 5y ago
        Even if that’s true the argument “web3 is better for some users and developers” is very far from “web3 will disrupt the internet as we know it”