4 ms·

All use cases are going to be in the form "you can do X, but now in a decentralized way" because at the end of the day, it's just code running in a virtual mach

All use cases are going to be in the form "you can do X, but now in a decentralized way" because at the end of the day, it's just code running in a virtual machine while some startup could've run similar code on a machine in AWS. Many people do not see any value in decentralization and think traditional (centralized) solutions are fine or better (I'm not saying they are right or wrong). But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable.

dmitriid 5y ago
> But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable. No. We don't "fundamentally disagree". We're looking at proposed "solutions" and immediately see the vast disconnect between what they claim to do/solve/improve and what they actually do/solve/improve. Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond "because crypto", "because decentralised", "because blockchain", as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  > Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. Do you have an example of this happening in this thread? Because I don't think this is the case on HN generally. > And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond [...] "because decentralised" [...] as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't. You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > Do you have an example of this happening in this thread? This thread doesn't say this outright, but these basically says the same thing: - "We had fax machines before we had email. You could have said..." - "I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance to take." > You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement. No, I don't agree. Your original quote is: "But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable." Critics do not disagree that decentralized coordination is valuable. Decentralized coordination is an interesting and complex topic. We will never see any use cases as valid because none of the provided use cases are valid because of either or both of these: - a staggering amount of issues introduced by using blockchains. Because the people proposing blockchains have little to no understanding of what the real world needs - solutions already exist that provide the same thing faster, better, and with significantly more guarantees than any blockchain solution. First and foremost because none of the moving parts in the solution actually have a need for a blockchain All this has nothing to do with the "value of distributed coordination". Blockchain is a distributed append-only ledger. Give me a use-case for that, and I, as a critic, will say: yup, a valid use case. If you're saying "yes, litigation funding needs blockchain because crypto and decentralized", I will come at you with criticism, and will ask you to prove that bringing blockchain into the equation actually improves things or solves any significant number of issues.
    - sanderjd 5y ago
      So, your example of people saying the technology is "beyond reproach" is me saying "I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance"? Your proportions seem off.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > Your proportions seem off. Do they? Let's see how you and @jallen_dot_dev engaged with the criticisms I had in the form of a short list: - "knee-jerk reaction" - "it's like email vs. fax" - "you disagree that distributed coordination is valuable" Nope, my proportions are definitely not off. Even in the context of "litigation funding" any criticism is dismissed because blockchain. Even though it's on crypto-peddlers to prove that their "solutions" improve anything, not on the rest of the world to point out obvious flaws and problems. But, no. If it's blockchain, it's immediately good, and perfect, and improves things. If you do't agree, it's a knee-jerk reaction of a person embracing fax against the glorious new email. Because anything blockchain is always revolutionary in all "it's just a metaphors". I will not engage in this thread further.
- sanderjd 5y ago
  > Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. Whatever else is true about cryptocurrencies / blockchains, "beyond reproach" is not one of those things; I can't think of much in technology that I've seen come in for so much reproach. Which is fine, I agree with you that nothing should be beyond reproach, but it just isn't true that there is no healthy full throated pushback on these technologies.

dmitriid 5y ago

> But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable. No. We don't "fundamentally disagree". We're looking at proposed "solutions" and immediately see the vast disconnect between what they claim to do/solve/improve and what they actually do/solve/improve. Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond "because crypto", "because decentralised", "because blockchain", as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't.

jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
> Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. Do you have an example of this happening in this thread? Because I don't think this is the case on HN generally. > And proponents of these things can't even show how and why they are better beyond [...] "because decentralised" [...] as if this explains things and makes thing automatically better. No, they don't. You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > Do you have an example of this happening in this thread? This thread doesn't say this outright, but these basically says the same thing: - "We had fax machines before we had email. You could have said..." - "I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance to take." > You seem to be agreeing with my point about how the value of a decentralized solution is a fundamental disagreement. No, I don't agree. Your original quote is: "But this is why critics will never see any use cases as valid, because they fundamentally disagree that the thing blockchains do (decentralized coordination) is valuable." Critics do not disagree that decentralized coordination is valuable. Decentralized coordination is an interesting and complex topic. We will never see any use cases as valid because none of the provided use cases are valid because of either or both of these: - a staggering amount of issues introduced by using blockchains. Because the people proposing blockchains have little to no understanding of what the real world needs - solutions already exist that provide the same thing faster, better, and with significantly more guarantees than any blockchain solution. First and foremost because none of the moving parts in the solution actually have a need for a blockchain All this has nothing to do with the "value of distributed coordination". Blockchain is a distributed append-only ledger. Give me a use-case for that, and I, as a critic, will say: yup, a valid use case. If you're saying "yes, litigation funding needs blockchain because crypto and decentralized", I will come at you with criticism, and will ask you to prove that bringing blockchain into the equation actually improves things or solves any significant number of issues.
  - sanderjd 5y ago
    So, your example of people saying the technology is "beyond reproach" is me saying "I don't think knee jerk dismissal is the right stance"? Your proportions seem off.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Your proportions seem off. Do they? Let's see how you and @jallen_dot_dev engaged with the criticisms I had in the form of a short list: - "knee-jerk reaction" - "it's like email vs. fax" - "you disagree that distributed coordination is valuable" Nope, my proportions are definitely not off. Even in the context of "litigation funding" any criticism is dismissed because blockchain. Even though it's on crypto-peddlers to prove that their "solutions" improve anything, not on the rest of the world to point out obvious flaws and problems. But, no. If it's blockchain, it's immediately good, and perfect, and improves things. If you do't agree, it's a knee-jerk reaction of a person embracing fax against the glorious new email. Because anything blockchain is always revolutionary in all "it's just a metaphors". I will not engage in this thread further.
sanderjd 5y ago
> Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. Whatever else is true about cryptocurrencies / blockchains, "beyond reproach" is not one of those things; I can't think of much in technology that I've seen come in for so much reproach. Which is fine, I agree with you that nothing should be beyond reproach, but it just isn't true that there is no healthy full throated pushback on these technologies.