4 ms·

Your first comment is a very common crypto talking point that isn't really borne in reality IMHO. It takes decades to see the impact. It almost never takes a

• keiferski 5y ago
  > It almost never takes a decade to see the use, If you study the history of technology, its ultimate impact is never manifest within a decade. It took decades for the Gutenberg Printing Press to spread around Europe and centuries for the consequences to see be seen (Protestant Reformation, newspapers, birth of the modern media, on and on.) This is the case for pretty much every other invention. > Crypto doesn't really solve a problem that needed solving Again, this may be because the problem hasn't arisen yet or isn't obvious yet. We have only just begun the era of networked communications.
  • dagmx 5y ago
    It took years for the printing press to spread around the world in a time when that was difficult for any physical object to spread around the world. It did not take years for it to be seen as incredibly useful and it was clear fairly early what the use for it was. Saying the problem isn't obvious yet is bizarre. The printing press's use case was apparent immediately, even if the extent of its impact wasn't. You're conflating impact and problem space conveniently.
    • colordrops 5y ago
      There are many people that find cryptocurrency to be incredibly useful. "The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson
    • keiferski 5y ago
      Again, if you had made any declarations on the printing press a decade after it was invented, you'd have missed pretty much its entire impact. There are clear use cases for blockchain which have been laid out ad infinitum by other people. There are also downsides. This makes it pretty much the same as any other technology, e.g. the combustion engine.
      • dagmx 5y ago
        What is an appropriate time according to you then? There are only two periods of time that can be commented on. From inception to the present. From the present to future predictions. The former hasn't shown a use that can't be solved better by other methods. The latter hasn't shown any either. The printing press on day 1 had a mission statement that had no equal. So did the combustion engine. It did the current thing faster and better.
        • keiferski 5y ago
          I'm not suggesting "an appropriate time" in which an invention can be deemed impactful, because that isn't how history works. This is the point I am trying to convey. If we look at other inventions and broadly speaking, "knowledge," it's quite common for the real impact to not be seen for quite a long time. E.g. the Renaissance and re-interest in / rediscovery of classical sources. I don't know why this is so controversial, but I suspect it's because of #2 in my original comment. Again, I didn't say that crypto will become extremely useful and important in the future, but simply that declaring it useless or unimportant now is foolish and unlike virtually every other technology.
          • dagmx 5y ago
            I just find the general sentiment very hand wavey by conflating impact and use because it doesn't say anything. It's a wait and see indefinitely to prevent any real discussion on the merits today, while being a catch all to side step critique.
            • 5y ago
  • onion2k 5y ago
    This is the case for pretty much every other invention. It is, but that was because far fewer people were well educated so they didn't really see the need, and innovations tended to be physical objects that can only travel as far and as fast as the transport of the time will take them. Today most people in the developed world are very well educated (relative to the 1600s) and things based on computers travel at pretty much the speed of light. Things, particularly in tech, obviously move faster now.
    • keiferski 5y ago
      That sounds mostly like modern hubris to me, combined with a lack of patience, itself driven by our on-demand, "I want it now!" economy.
  • notahacker 5y ago
    I'm not sure why crypto is being compared with historic technologies in a world which lacked the communication and education to spread them, and not much-hyped Internet technologies like eCommerce video streaming or cloud computing which arguably had much greater technical barriers to spread than crypto but were ubiquitous within 10 years and exciting to people that didn't have a financial stake in them. The second bit worth noting if you think crypto is more to follow the Gutenberg path, is that investing in him turned out to be a terrible decision: he made things which were tangibly useful from the start but lost money doing it...
• colordrops 5y ago
  "no use case" and "no new tech" are just vague opinions that are typical anti-crypto talking points. Whether you personally like the use cases or not, obviously they are there as it's been on fire for more than a decade now, and continuing to grow in popularity. And regarding tech, there is no doubt that the advent nakamoto consensus algorithm is an absolutely breakthrough technology that will be seen as a pivotal moment in the history of tech, for better or wrose.
  • dagmx 5y ago
    As someone else said, this argument is tautological. You're saying it's useful because it's in use because it's useful.
    • colordrops 5y ago
      You are suggesting that there is an alternative. What perchance might that be? Some authority figure or organization that decides whether something is useful?
      • dagmx 5y ago
        The alternative is to say something of actual substance instead of an empty statement saying it's useful because it's useful.
        • lukeramsden 5y ago
          The same can be applied to your comment of "Crypto doesn't really solve a problem that needed solving". That's not an axiom, thats a subjective opinion, saying its not useful because it's not useful. Plenty of people will, and have, argued otherwise.
        • colordrops 5y ago
          I didn't say it's "useful because it's useful". It's "useful because it's used by many people". Unless you are implicitly agreeing with me that the definition of useful is that many people use something and find value in it.
• int_19h 5y ago
  Hawala clearly solves a problem - the very fact of its existence is proof of that. Crypto solves the same problem.
  • dagmx 5y ago
    Hawala also existed in a time with poor communication abilities between the financial nodes.
    • int_19h 5y ago
      Hawala still exists.
  • notahacker 5y ago
    The problem Hawala solves is turning currency at one end into spendable cash (probably denominated in a different currency) at the other end Crypto doesn't solve this (except in very limited circumstances where recipients can buy everything they need with crypto). It's just a layer in the middle, and as it's a layer which requires additional exchanges, it's not more efficient except where it provides a loophole in foreign exchange regulations or where parties with a vested interest in crypto have chosen to subsidise the exchange costs.
    • int_19h 5y ago
      The problem Hawala solves is e.g. sending money from USA to Iran (substitute any other two countries where legal barriers are in place). Which, yes, is a loophole in foreign exchange regulations. Whether you believe that it's a valid use case depends on whether you believe those foreign exchange regulations are justifiable. It can be argued both ways, but don't assume that everybody agrees with you on this.
      • notahacker 5y ago
        Hawala is just a system for eventually consistent settlement between money lenders; sometimes the transactions are entirely legal, sometimes possible legally via more expensive regulated entities, sometimes entirely illegal. Legal or illegal, crypto is still just a possible settlement layer in between parties that receive and dish out spendable cash, requiring the cash dealer to trust the stability of the token rather than his relationship with the counterparty