33 ms·

> Currency is inefficient? It's sure better than trading cows. > Smart contracts? Writing things using english and then every side involved hiring lawyers to b

> Currency is inefficient? It's sure better than trading cows. > Smart contracts? Writing things using english and then every side involved hiring lawyers to be used as bad just-in-time compilers for what was written is way more inefficient. If crypto is doing these things really more efficiently than current solutions, then why neither use case has any significant adoption of blockchain solutions?

DaltonCoffee 5y ago
Some of our current financial systems are deeply embedded and difficult to replace. We're in a situation where we need bankers to finance lawyers to work on issues that would negate some of the need for bankers and lawyers.
- MoSattler 5y ago
  > We're in a situation where we need bankers to finance lawyers to work on issues that would negate some of the need for bankers and lawyers. How so? For what value proposition specifically?
plebianRube 5y ago
Every technological revolution is held back as long as possible by those making the most money using the current system. London streets will be covered in 3 feet manure if industry progresses at this pace. You’re crazy if you think this fool contraption you’ve been wasting your time on will ever displace the horse, there is no significant adoption. Electricity is dangerous, there is no significant adoption, gas lamps and candles work fine. Remove trollys since we can make more money selling tires, oil, and buses. Internet is a fad, what use case is it solving, it burns a lump of coal every time a book is ordered, there is no significant adoption. EV1 - we will take your electric cars and crush them, there is no significant adoption. Proof of work guaranteeing that no one can alter history unless they spend more energy than the entire network has spent already to secure property rights has no use case and no significant adoption. At this point either you see a pattern from history, or you remain perpetually on the wrong side of a Blub paradox.
- CRConrad 5y ago
  > Remove trollys since we can make more money selling tires, oil, and buses. Trains and trolleys were the incumbent system before the motorcar, so this analogy is the opposite of what you're arguing.

DaltonCoffee 5y ago

Some of our current financial systems are deeply embedded and difficult to replace. We're in a situation where we need bankers to finance lawyers to work on issues that would negate some of the need for bankers and lawyers.

MoSattler 5y ago
> We're in a situation where we need bankers to finance lawyers to work on issues that would negate some of the need for bankers and lawyers. How so? For what value proposition specifically?

plebianRube 5y ago

Every technological revolution is held back as long as possible by those making the most money using the current system. London streets will be covered in 3 feet manure if industry progresses at this pace. You’re crazy if you think this fool contraption you’ve been wasting your time on will ever displace the horse, there is no significant adoption. Electricity is dangerous, there is no significant adoption, gas lamps and candles work fine. Remove trollys since we can make more money selling tires, oil, and buses. Internet is a fad, what use case is it solving, it burns a lump of coal every time a book is ordered, there is no significant adoption. EV1 - we will take your electric cars and crush them, there is no significant adoption. Proof of work guaranteeing that no one can alter history unless they spend more energy than the entire network has spent already to secure property rights has no use case and no significant adoption. At this point either you see a pattern from history, or you remain perpetually on the wrong side of a Blub paradox.

CRConrad 5y ago
> Remove trollys since we can make more money selling tires, oil, and buses. Trains and trolleys were the incumbent system before the motorcar, so this analogy is the opposite of what you're arguing.