8 ms·

> Any questions and criticism of these claims and solutions is immediately dismissed because these are unquestionable magical solutions beyond any reproach. Do

> 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
      Yes, your proportions are off, you're responding to uncertainty with absolutism. Neither of the people you have been discussing with in this thread are making an argument that blockchains are "immediately good". You are getting heated in a way that is out of step with the tenor of the responses to you. I would suggest considering whether your arguments would be more persuasive if they were presented more dispassionately.
- jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
  What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of - It's actually a good thing for a central bank to control the money supply - We should be able to censor/reverse certain transactions - Ordinary people don't actually care about those things proving my point that if you don't value decentralization then you will think that existing solutions that don't have it are better.

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
    Yes, your proportions are off, you're responding to uncertainty with absolutism. Neither of the people you have been discussing with in this thread are making an argument that blockchains are "immediately good". You are getting heated in a way that is out of step with the tenor of the responses to you. I would suggest considering whether your arguments would be more persuasive if they were presented more dispassionately.
jallen_dot_dev 5y ago
What solution already existed for transferring money across distance without a trusted 3rd party? If we go down this line of arguing we will end up with one or more of - It's actually a good thing for a central bank to control the money supply - We should be able to censor/reverse certain transactions - Ordinary people don't actually care about those things proving my point that if you don't value decentralization then you will think that existing solutions that don't have it are better.