5 ms·

i suggest learning it properly before jumping to conclusions. everything has pros and cons. e.g. cars pollute but would you want to go back to riding horses? ju

i suggest learning it properly before jumping to conclusions. everything has pros and cons. e.g. cars pollute but would you want to go back to riding horses? judge less, learn more

ryandamm 5y ago
I've yet to see a "pro" for blockchain or NFTs that doesn't conform to the characterization you're trying to dispute. Care to offer one? I'm eager to learn.
- magicjosh 5y ago
  I also want a writeup covering some examples of Bitcoin or Ethereum use that are relatable. This recent NYTimes piece takes that approach, though none of the examples are that impressive: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actually-buy-with-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actual... (Disclosure I own Bitcoin and Ethereum)
  - freemanon 5y ago
    Blockchain and crypto are related yet distinct concepts. I was lining up for a PCR test in Thailand the other day, and it was a huge mess. The lack of streamlined systems between invoicing, identity verification, etc means very long queues, people running back and forth to get their documents printed. The testing scheme is private run but I assume it needs to interface with governmental departments (i.e. Immigration and the police) to initiate quarantine in case i'm positive, and change my eligibility status for travel outside the sandbox area if i'm negative, or to arrest me if i fail to take the test within the specified time. I thought about why so many centralizsed systems failed, or failed to be built, for streamlining processes in the real world. I think that it's because typically such systems would be built on SQL databases and backend servers that are prone to hacks and downtimes, and the APIs built by different developers often cannot integrate with one another. What if, instead of databases and custom APIs, a blockchain with smart contracts is used? What if we can also sign documents such as receipts with hashes that can be verified off-chain and off-line? We'd have a fault-tolerant, always-available systems, and also a "unified" protocol in which other systems can interface to. Instead of having different databases and APIs that are hard to integrate with one another, a blockchain could be the central storage and transactions handler that different systems interface to. The PCR test system would be something along the line of: - Booking through a smart contract, paying the PCR test fee, and obtaining a receipt signed by the contract in the form of a hash - Upon arrival in the test center, they check the validity of this signature offline by using a public key to verify your payment. - An identification service can keep a hashed version of your personal data on-chain. You can provide your name, DOB, place of birth etc, and this can be checked against the identification service by decoding the hashed data with a one-time key you generated There's no DB that can be hacked or go corrupt, no BE servers that can be DDOS'd. There are of course questions to be answered. But I see many use cases in my everyday life.
    - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
      Or, the provider, namely the government, can write the code to orchestrate these API calls even if these APIs are managed by disparate entities. It's not pretend like it's not a solved problem. It's just that you're trying to eliminate the central provider in this case and you want to replace that with a blockchain which is excruciatingly slow
      - freemanon 5y ago
        A colleague of mine once disagreed to use git because it was easier for him to copy paste the project's folder every now and then to keep "versions" of his work. There are trade offs, but having data and core business logic in an open and transparent network would allow for better interoperability imo. Not saying there aren't fundamental issues to be solved with using blockchains, but it's a new path to be explored. The speed of the blockchain doesn't necessarily have to be slow. It depends on how decentralised and safe it needs to be. It's possible to create a "private" blockchain for some use cases. I don't see web3 as open in the sense of open to the whole world, but open to whoever the stakeholders are.
    - hiq 5y ago
      > Instead of having different databases and APIs that are hard to integrate with one another, a blockchain could be the central storage and transactions handler that different systems interface to. That's a common refrain that seems to associate blockchains with standards and common APIs, it doesn't resist closer inspection. To take your example, I can easily design two PCR test systems completely incompatible with each other, and leaving no way for anyone else to implement a compatibility layer between these two, even if they both use the same blockchain. There are various ERC20 tokens that should in theory implement the same interface, but turn out to be subtly incompatible with each other because of how imprecise the specification is. Standardization is hard, even when people try, and blockchain doesn't even enforce a modicum of effort in this direction. Another way to see it: as a software development constraint, "the system has to live in a blockchain" is akin to "it has to be written in C" or "it has to use functional programming": maybe the end result will be more alike, maybe it'll be easier for a dev to understand one system based on the knowledge of the other, but that's pretty much it. > There's no DB that can be hacked or go corrupt, no BE servers that can be DDOS'd. Smart contracts can be vulnerable (and ensuring they are not is very expensive, if possible at all), private keys get lost and some external system has to update the smart contract (you can never really get rid of all external systems, something lives outside the blockchain, if only the human operators), transaction fees are high enough that getting protection from a DDOS mitigation service would be cheaper than using a blockchain in the first place.
mikeg8 5y ago
This is always the defense: “you obviously don’t understand it”. Or, maybe there is a good reason this type of article pops to the top of HN every other day. The skeptics have good reason to doubt the viability of all the hype.
- freemanon 5y ago
  is calling out oversimplifcation is also oversimplifying? i'm not arguing that there is no good reason to be sceptic, i'm calling out against forming a strong opinion strongly held on little understanding
  - kentm 5y ago
    But you haven’t verified little understanding and crypto proponents never do. It’s always “skeptic of crypto = little understanding”. You’re doing that exact thing here.
    - freemanon 5y ago
      I build dApps and solidity contracts with hundreds of millions of USD in TVL. But that's besides the point. It's not a contest of who's more knowledgeable, I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        > I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions Yes, but you're arguing that against someone -- someone whom you haven't shown is making "quick judgements and assumptions". You're just assuming that. That is the problem GP was pointing out: Crypto-"currency" proponents always jump to that conclusion. Stop doing that.
        freemanon 5y ago
        "In other words it's a bullshit scam" isn't jumping to conclusions? I don't think telling someone to not jump to conclusions is itself jumping to conclusions. Otherwise we'd have infinite loops in every discussion
mohanmcgeek 5y ago
I see more and more of this attitude these days: "Stop spreading disinformation. Educate yourself" A useful contribution would be to point out how exactly the GP is wrong. I can imagine the current international banking system get upgraded with a blockchain like technology such that you don't need a central bank of central banks. But the web3 guys simply want to compare detractors to luddites
- freemanon 5y ago
  my argument isn't that the GP's information is wrong per se, but that gross oversimplification through slapping labels like "scam" and "bullshit" against the merits of a technology is blind, just as blind as people who worship the blockchain. my argument is for us to make our cases in an enlightened and civilised way instead of calling out names
  - CRConrad 5y ago
    And still, you have utterly failed to tell -- either in an "enlightened and civilised" or in any other way -- why and how this whole "Crypto" fad isn't scam and bullshit. Until somebody does, the null hypothesis remains that it is. (Use some cuter name if that makes you feel better, but it is what it is.)
    - freemanon 5y ago
      The fallacy of false dichotomies. Things aren't either totally useful or totally a scam. That's what I'm trying to say, we shouldn't jump into quick conclusions one way or the other, especially without trying to really understand first. I have my views on positive use cases for the blockchain and/or cryptocurrencies, and I got that by learning and building stuff with it. On whether the technology is a net good or bad to society, I don't know. One can refuse to participate in anything without completely dismissing its merit. But that's the polarised world we live in :/
      - CRConrad 5y ago
dmingod666 5y ago
Read the article by moxie on NFTs. It is so poorly designed that a jr JavaScript developer with 6 months experience would be ashamed of it. Don't "Go-and-lean" us. We are technology people here not your non-tech crowd that'll get scared and silenced by "go and learn"
- freemanon 5y ago
  there is no arguing that the world of crypto is full of scams. just like the internet. we can learn and adopt new technologies while keeping down its externalities by understanding the pros and cons, not by slapping overgeneralised labels of "good" or "bad" on everything to cover for the lack of rounded understanding
rsanheim 5y ago
I actually would prefer riding horses if it were feasible and safe in my community, thank you very much =). I've learned enough at this point to know a scam when I see one, and I definitely don't need to go thru my history w/ software and tech bubbles and cryptocurrencies to explain why web 3.0 is full-on bullshit.
- rambambram 5y ago
  I like your reasoning here and in other comments. Please consider adding an RSS feed to your blog, I want to subscribe to it in Web 1.1 style.
- freemanon 5y ago
  well i guess it's simpler to live with fast and decisive conclusions to new information. personally i try to manage my prejudice and keep giving chances for someone or a new piece of information to change my mind, in case i have the wrong understanding
- jakupovic 5y ago
  Oh wise one can you tell us more? We're dying to learn from the smart ones who can tell based on their past what the future holds. Or maybe you don't know, which is true, since none can predict future. Therefore you're talking out of your ... and not contributing to the conversation. Now you can say that I'm not contributing either, but it has the same place as your statement...

i suggest learning it properly before jumping to conclusions. everything has pros and cons. e.g. cars pollute but would you want to go back to riding horses? judge less, learn more

ryandamm 5y ago

I've yet to see a "pro" for blockchain or NFTs that doesn't conform to the characterization you're trying to dispute. Care to offer one? I'm eager to learn.

magicjosh 5y ago
I also want a writeup covering some examples of Bitcoin or Ethereum use that are relatable. This recent NYTimes piece takes that approach, though none of the examples are that impressive: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actually-buy-with-bitcoin.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/02/03/style/what-can-you-actual... (Disclosure I own Bitcoin and Ethereum)
- freemanon 5y ago
  Blockchain and crypto are related yet distinct concepts. I was lining up for a PCR test in Thailand the other day, and it was a huge mess. The lack of streamlined systems between invoicing, identity verification, etc means very long queues, people running back and forth to get their documents printed. The testing scheme is private run but I assume it needs to interface with governmental departments (i.e. Immigration and the police) to initiate quarantine in case i'm positive, and change my eligibility status for travel outside the sandbox area if i'm negative, or to arrest me if i fail to take the test within the specified time. I thought about why so many centralizsed systems failed, or failed to be built, for streamlining processes in the real world. I think that it's because typically such systems would be built on SQL databases and backend servers that are prone to hacks and downtimes, and the APIs built by different developers often cannot integrate with one another. What if, instead of databases and custom APIs, a blockchain with smart contracts is used? What if we can also sign documents such as receipts with hashes that can be verified off-chain and off-line? We'd have a fault-tolerant, always-available systems, and also a "unified" protocol in which other systems can interface to. Instead of having different databases and APIs that are hard to integrate with one another, a blockchain could be the central storage and transactions handler that different systems interface to. The PCR test system would be something along the line of: - Booking through a smart contract, paying the PCR test fee, and obtaining a receipt signed by the contract in the form of a hash - Upon arrival in the test center, they check the validity of this signature offline by using a public key to verify your payment. - An identification service can keep a hashed version of your personal data on-chain. You can provide your name, DOB, place of birth etc, and this can be checked against the identification service by decoding the hashed data with a one-time key you generated There's no DB that can be hacked or go corrupt, no BE servers that can be DDOS'd. There are of course questions to be answered. But I see many use cases in my everyday life.
  - mohanmcgeek 5y ago
    Or, the provider, namely the government, can write the code to orchestrate these API calls even if these APIs are managed by disparate entities. It's not pretend like it's not a solved problem. It's just that you're trying to eliminate the central provider in this case and you want to replace that with a blockchain which is excruciatingly slow
    - freemanon 5y ago
      A colleague of mine once disagreed to use git because it was easier for him to copy paste the project's folder every now and then to keep "versions" of his work. There are trade offs, but having data and core business logic in an open and transparent network would allow for better interoperability imo. Not saying there aren't fundamental issues to be solved with using blockchains, but it's a new path to be explored. The speed of the blockchain doesn't necessarily have to be slow. It depends on how decentralised and safe it needs to be. It's possible to create a "private" blockchain for some use cases. I don't see web3 as open in the sense of open to the whole world, but open to whoever the stakeholders are.
  - hiq 5y ago
    > Instead of having different databases and APIs that are hard to integrate with one another, a blockchain could be the central storage and transactions handler that different systems interface to. That's a common refrain that seems to associate blockchains with standards and common APIs, it doesn't resist closer inspection. To take your example, I can easily design two PCR test systems completely incompatible with each other, and leaving no way for anyone else to implement a compatibility layer between these two, even if they both use the same blockchain. There are various ERC20 tokens that should in theory implement the same interface, but turn out to be subtly incompatible with each other because of how imprecise the specification is. Standardization is hard, even when people try, and blockchain doesn't even enforce a modicum of effort in this direction. Another way to see it: as a software development constraint, "the system has to live in a blockchain" is akin to "it has to be written in C" or "it has to use functional programming": maybe the end result will be more alike, maybe it'll be easier for a dev to understand one system based on the knowledge of the other, but that's pretty much it. > There's no DB that can be hacked or go corrupt, no BE servers that can be DDOS'd. Smart contracts can be vulnerable (and ensuring they are not is very expensive, if possible at all), private keys get lost and some external system has to update the smart contract (you can never really get rid of all external systems, something lives outside the blockchain, if only the human operators), transaction fees are high enough that getting protection from a DDOS mitigation service would be cheaper than using a blockchain in the first place.

mikeg8 5y ago

This is always the defense: “you obviously don’t understand it”. Or, maybe there is a good reason this type of article pops to the top of HN every other day. The skeptics have good reason to doubt the viability of all the hype.

freemanon 5y ago
is calling out oversimplifcation is also oversimplifying? i'm not arguing that there is no good reason to be sceptic, i'm calling out against forming a strong opinion strongly held on little understanding
- kentm 5y ago
  But you haven’t verified little understanding and crypto proponents never do. It’s always “skeptic of crypto = little understanding”. You’re doing that exact thing here.
  - freemanon 5y ago
    I build dApps and solidity contracts with hundreds of millions of USD in TVL. But that's besides the point. It's not a contest of who's more knowledgeable, I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      > I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions Yes, but you're arguing that against someone -- someone whom you haven't shown is making "quick judgements and assumptions". You're just assuming that. That is the problem GP was pointing out: Crypto-"currency" proponents always jump to that conclusion. Stop doing that.
      - freemanon 5y ago
        "In other words it's a bullshit scam" isn't jumping to conclusions? I don't think telling someone to not jump to conclusions is itself jumping to conclusions. Otherwise we'd have infinite loops in every discussion

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

I see more and more of this attitude these days: "Stop spreading disinformation. Educate yourself" A useful contribution would be to point out how exactly the GP is wrong. I can imagine the current international banking system get upgraded with a blockchain like technology such that you don't need a central bank of central banks. But the web3 guys simply want to compare detractors to luddites

freemanon 5y ago
my argument isn't that the GP's information is wrong per se, but that gross oversimplification through slapping labels like "scam" and "bullshit" against the merits of a technology is blind, just as blind as people who worship the blockchain. my argument is for us to make our cases in an enlightened and civilised way instead of calling out names
- CRConrad 5y ago
  And still, you have utterly failed to tell -- either in an "enlightened and civilised" or in any other way -- why and how this whole "Crypto" fad isn't scam and bullshit. Until somebody does, the null hypothesis remains that it is. (Use some cuter name if that makes you feel better, but it is what it is.)
  - freemanon 5y ago
    The fallacy of false dichotomies. Things aren't either totally useful or totally a scam. That's what I'm trying to say, we shouldn't jump into quick conclusions one way or the other, especially without trying to really understand first. I have my views on positive use cases for the blockchain and/or cryptocurrencies, and I got that by learning and building stuff with it. On whether the technology is a net good or bad to society, I don't know. One can refuse to participate in anything without completely dismissing its merit. But that's the polarised world we live in :/
    - CRConrad 5y ago

dmingod666 5y ago

Read the article by moxie on NFTs. It is so poorly designed that a jr JavaScript developer with 6 months experience would be ashamed of it. Don't "Go-and-lean" us. We are technology people here not your non-tech crowd that'll get scared and silenced by "go and learn"

freemanon 5y ago
there is no arguing that the world of crypto is full of scams. just like the internet. we can learn and adopt new technologies while keeping down its externalities by understanding the pros and cons, not by slapping overgeneralised labels of "good" or "bad" on everything to cover for the lack of rounded understanding

rsanheim 5y ago

I actually would prefer riding horses if it were feasible and safe in my community, thank you very much =). I've learned enough at this point to know a scam when I see one, and I definitely don't need to go thru my history w/ software and tech bubbles and cryptocurrencies to explain why web 3.0 is full-on bullshit.

rambambram 5y ago
I like your reasoning here and in other comments. Please consider adding an RSS feed to your blog, I want to subscribe to it in Web 1.1 style.
freemanon 5y ago
well i guess it's simpler to live with fast and decisive conclusions to new information. personally i try to manage my prejudice and keep giving chances for someone or a new piece of information to change my mind, in case i have the wrong understanding
jakupovic 5y ago
Oh wise one can you tell us more? We're dying to learn from the smart ones who can tell based on their past what the future holds. Or maybe you don't know, which is true, since none can predict future. Therefore you're talking out of your ... and not contributing to the conversation. Now you can say that I'm not contributing either, but it has the same place as your statement...