3 ms·

I don't buy the early part either, but "3 years into the internet we had emails and tcp" is the wrong way to critique it IMO. The "Internet" meaning IP was alre

I don't buy the early part either, but "3 years into the internet we had emails and tcp" is the wrong way to critique it IMO. The "Internet" meaning IP was already the 3rd or 4th (or more) attempt at trying to create a computer networking standard. Predecessors to the internet include: ARPANET, Usenet, FidoNet, BBSes, and CYCLADES, if not more. By the way, Email existed on _all_ of these platforms before TCP or even IP. Usenet used UUCP to transfer Internet Messages (the format used by Email later on). FidoNet had EchoMail. BBSes had their own custom mail message like standards. The Internet also had a direct competitor in the form of France's MiniTel. In hindsight, it seems like "3 years into the internet we already had emails and TCP", but the seeds for these things had been in the works for a decade plus. It's a testament to the massive success of the internet that we _think_ in hindsight that "3 years into the internet we had emails and tcp".

yawnxyz 5y ago
3 years into the emails, we didn't have something as user-friendly as Hotmail or Gmail
dopidopHN 5y ago
I used Minitel 5 or 6 years before I ever connected to the internet. That stuff was clunky and frustrating.
- bambax 5y ago
  I used Minitel for many years. It worked well.
p1esk 5y ago
"3 years into the internet we already had emails and TCP", but the seeds for these things had been in the works for a decade plus I'm not sure what you mean. Nothing has been in the works for a decade plus in 1971 when the first email was sent - it just two years after the very first internet connection was made. In contrast, it's been 13 years since bitcoins appeared, and aside from a potentially easier way to pay for illegal goods, I don't see any useful applications of crypto technology.
- Karrot_Kream 5y ago
  In your other post to my comment you mentioned that "the internet" was referring to ARPANET so I'll use that version of your argument. Electronic mail [1] was already being used on private networks to mainframes 1962. Before that, data messages were being sent over Teletext, so these private networks were just trying to do away with requiring a Teletext printer. Before Teletext, you had telegraphs being sent. ARPANET was built with the idea to allow remote access to expensive computing resources, mainframes, at universities and government research institutions. This is far from the idea that "the computers of the world should be connected", which is roughly the idea behind the internet. Electronic mail was reimplemented in parallel on multiple different networks. But for a long time, the internet was indeed a solution looking for a problem. Why do Joe and Anu's computers have to be connected together, who cares when they can call each other on the phone or meet in person? I mean, can Joe or Anu even afford a private computer?? Private networks for research or commercial purposes were already in regular use. > I don't see any useful applications of crypto technology. I think in your anti-crypto zeal, you're assuming a position I don't have. I don't actually think it's valid to say "cryptocurrency is early". The early computer networks were created at a time when huge monopolies, state-run or corporatist, owned most telecoms networks around the world. It was bound to take time when entrenched interests had interest in maintaining the status quo. I also think that comparing blockchains to the Internet is silly; the Internet is the Internet, blockchains are blockchains. My point here is simply that "we had emails and TCP in 3 years" is plain factually incorrect. The internet as we know it now (a system of networks connected via L2 links that are then bridged using IP/L3 on an IP virtual address space) actually took a long time to be developed. If you're looking for an analogy to show that 13 years is too long for usable innovation, then the Web would be a better one, as the Web legitimately was used within a mere couple years of its inception. I still think making analogy between the Web and blockchains is silly for the same reason I think making the analogy between the Internet and blockchains is silly. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_email https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_email
  - p1esk 5y ago
    OK, you have a point, I agree that comparing blockchains to internet is not very useful. And I'm not actually anti-crypto, simply because I don't know enough about it or its potential. What do you think, where is this technology going? Clearly a lot of smart people are trying to build something. What are they building?

yawnxyz 5y ago

3 years into the emails, we didn't have something as user-friendly as Hotmail or Gmail

dopidopHN 5y ago

I used Minitel 5 or 6 years before I ever connected to the internet. That stuff was clunky and frustrating.

bambax 5y ago
I used Minitel for many years. It worked well.

p1esk 5y ago

"3 years into the internet we already had emails and TCP", but the seeds for these things had been in the works for a decade plus I'm not sure what you mean. Nothing has been in the works for a decade plus in 1971 when the first email was sent - it just two years after the very first internet connection was made. In contrast, it's been 13 years since bitcoins appeared, and aside from a potentially easier way to pay for illegal goods, I don't see any useful applications of crypto technology.

Karrot_Kream 5y ago
In your other post to my comment you mentioned that "the internet" was referring to ARPANET so I'll use that version of your argument. Electronic mail [1] was already being used on private networks to mainframes 1962. Before that, data messages were being sent over Teletext, so these private networks were just trying to do away with requiring a Teletext printer. Before Teletext, you had telegraphs being sent. ARPANET was built with the idea to allow remote access to expensive computing resources, mainframes, at universities and government research institutions. This is far from the idea that "the computers of the world should be connected", which is roughly the idea behind the internet. Electronic mail was reimplemented in parallel on multiple different networks. But for a long time, the internet was indeed a solution looking for a problem. Why do Joe and Anu's computers have to be connected together, who cares when they can call each other on the phone or meet in person? I mean, can Joe or Anu even afford a private computer?? Private networks for research or commercial purposes were already in regular use. > I don't see any useful applications of crypto technology. I think in your anti-crypto zeal, you're assuming a position I don't have. I don't actually think it's valid to say "cryptocurrency is early". The early computer networks were created at a time when huge monopolies, state-run or corporatist, owned most telecoms networks around the world. It was bound to take time when entrenched interests had interest in maintaining the status quo. I also think that comparing blockchains to the Internet is silly; the Internet is the Internet, blockchains are blockchains. My point here is simply that "we had emails and TCP in 3 years" is plain factually incorrect. The internet as we know it now (a system of networks connected via L2 links that are then bridged using IP/L3 on an IP virtual address space) actually took a long time to be developed. If you're looking for an analogy to show that 13 years is too long for usable innovation, then the Web would be a better one, as the Web legitimately was used within a mere couple years of its inception. I still think making analogy between the Web and blockchains is silly for the same reason I think making the analogy between the Internet and blockchains is silly. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_email https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_email
- p1esk 5y ago
  OK, you have a point, I agree that comparing blockchains to internet is not very useful. And I'm not actually anti-crypto, simply because I don't know enough about it or its potential. What do you think, where is this technology going? Clearly a lot of smart people are trying to build something. What are they building?