3 ms·

I don't think they are brushing off hard problems. The problem is that: 1. Some of those problems are being solved. 2. Some of those problems exist in other so

I don't think they are brushing off hard problems. The problem is that: 1. Some of those problems are being solved. 2. Some of those problems exist in other socially-accepted technologies and we've learned to deal with it. 3. People have trouble thinking abstractly and don't think deeply enough about their criticisms. I'll briefly try to address your points: - Stablecoins are going to be the answer here. In the future I think people will take out micro-loans in stablecoins with their bitcoin/ethereum/etc as collateral. Daily purchases will be in stablecoins. Confirmation times are actively being worked on, namely single-slot finality in ethereum. - This is being worked on. Ethereum is actively testing their new proof-of-stake algorithm as we speak with the goal of a full release in the next 3-6 months. Bitcoin is another story but I think it's a mistake to lump all cryptocurrencies together. - Criminal enablement. This exists but is vastly overblown. It turns out that transactions being public is risky for criminals. - Email has phishing scams. Phones have scams. Internet popups have scams. Any open technology is going to have scams. I suspect this will improve as we develop a social framework to educate people. How many times have you hear warnings about phishing? We can do the same with crypto. - This is being worked on. You don't need a GPU for proof-of-stake. - This is being worked on via UX and technology. Smart wallets for example allow people to recover their funds if they lose their keys.

Karunamon 5y ago
Remember that the GP was about Bitcoin, not crypto as a concept. Most of the 'being worked ons' there don't apply, and in many cases, the community is hostile to things that may solve the problems (e.g. the debate/debacle around the block size limit) for selfish reasons. Ether's ecosystem is a lot more promising, but still has a ton of rockiness. More specifically, I'm not confident in the core usability problems being UX implementation details. People don't want to have to think this much when making mundane purchases. Also, I'd argue just being as good as the existing systems is mere table stakes. It needs to be better (outside of being a speculation vehicle). That is one I truly don't see happening. The anonymity/uncensorability benefits are questionable, the valuation problem appears to rely exclusively on fickle market whims or corrupt centralized entities, lack of refundability is an anti-feature for the mass market (and only solvable with centralized middlemen, which obviates half the reason to be using a crypto in the first place!)

Karunamon 5y ago

Remember that the GP was about Bitcoin, not crypto as a concept. Most of the 'being worked ons' there don't apply, and in many cases, the community is hostile to things that may solve the problems (e.g. the debate/debacle around the block size limit) for selfish reasons. Ether's ecosystem is a lot more promising, but still has a ton of rockiness. More specifically, I'm not confident in the core usability problems being UX implementation details. People don't want to have to think this much when making mundane purchases. Also, I'd argue just being as good as the existing systems is mere table stakes. It needs to be better (outside of being a speculation vehicle). That is one I truly don't see happening. The anonymity/uncensorability benefits are questionable, the valuation problem appears to rely exclusively on fickle market whims or corrupt centralized entities, lack of refundability is an anti-feature for the mass market (and only solvable with centralized middlemen, which obviates half the reason to be using a crypto in the first place!)