6 ms·
I wish I remember where I saw this but someone described crypto like this: imagine you're a smart person who is super knowledgeable about something like softwar
by cletus 5y ago
I wish I remember where I saw this but someone described crypto like this: imagine you're a smart person who is super knowledgeable about something like software engineering, distributed systems and consensus. That's great. But then you make the mistake of thinking because you're really smart and good at this thing you must be smart about something completely different, like oh I don't know the financial system. That's crypto.
Basically, we're going to go through a process where a ton of people realize that things like reversible transactions in the traditional financial system are a feature not a bug. Thing like KYC/AML are a feature not a bug. The idea that crypto is extragovernmental is a myth. And things like smart contracts and NFTs only really work when they're completely self-contained on the blockchain. Like, I can create an NFT for a song but that doesn't mean I have the legal right to sell that (there's lots of scams like this). Even if I do, you still need traditional systems to enforce such rights anyway.
- rawtxapp 5y agoThat's very "pigeonholey" way of looking at things though, no? Just because you're good at something doesn't mean you can't become good at something else too. If you're super knowledgeable about very technical things, learning other hard sciences is feasible as well given enough time. At the end of the day, if you create anything that's worthless, it will be worthless independent of whether you're an insider or outsider.
- RC_ITR 5y agoI think GP’s underlying point (besides paraphrasing a popular YouTube video) is that for good reason, society elevated “computer engineers” because the work they did (e.g., build Google) was very impactful and value-creative. A bunch of computer engineers are now burning through that good will in a misguided attempt to accumulate personal wealth.
- manquer 5y agoGood will built when building Google (and others from that era) is already burnt by Google (and others ) of today. You rarely here positive stories about tech in general media these days compared to say 00's.
- lottin 5y agoThe argument isn't that they couldn't become knowledgeable in finance and economics, if they invested enough time and effort, but that they aren't, because they haven't, because they think that their expertise in one area makes them automatically experts in other areas. This is pretty accurate in my experience.
- PretzelPirate 5y agoI can have all of those positive things on a blockchain for when I need them, and I can do without them when I don’t need them. Blockchains are about choosing the degree of trust you want to have in others and the amount of control you want them to have over you, not completely throwing out ideas that work.
- EGreg 5y agoActually, I disagree. People have said the same about paper voting systems, that the inefficiency is a feature not a bug… yet they have major downsides eg to take the highest profile example with the most consequences, George W Bush got elected because people were confused with butterfly ballots and then it took too long to do a recount in Florida so the Supreme Court had to step in and stop the recount … as a result we got 9/11 (negligence) the invasion of Iraq (lots of excess deaths and destruction of large swaths of the middle east) the PATRIOT Act (erosion of civil liberties) and much more. Imagine if we had a secure system alongside the paper ballots that involved Merkle Trees and multi-factor verification for voting, so everyone could verify theirvote and participation would be higher. Banking apps are secure enough for people, why not this… I wrote an article on CoinDesk about this very thing two years ago: https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/03/12/in-defense-of-blockchain-voting/ https://www.coindesk.com/tech/2020/03/12/in-defense-of-block... Anyway, going back to “feature not a bug”. The real problem is Blockchain. It uses the full power of the network on every transaction, so it costs just as much to transfer $500 million in one shot as it does $0.50 — that is the wrong pricing structure. It is too cheap to transfer huge amounts and circumvent capital controls, do money laundering etc. The “world computer” is a glorified mainframe with “gas” playing the role of renting time on the mainframe. “Flash loans” shouldn’t be possible, they only are because one transaction in the world can happen at a time. When we move past blockchains, we will have proper pricing of securing transactions (in % of the amount being managed). And then we can build reversibility ON TOP OF the non-reversible architecture. The non-reversible architecture and finality in the vast majority of transactions is a GOOD thing just as it is in most databases. Reversibility should be explicitly built on top of it. Smart contracts and other things are great and we have only scratched the surface because Blockchain holds them back. Having the rules stated upfront and enforced without government violence is great. For example copyright and DRM is being replaced with NFTs and POAPs. Old boys clubs are being replaced with DAOs. New non-coercive business models are emerging. Open source and journalism and other digital content can be monetized without SWAT teams raiding grandmas. Just one of hundreds of innovations. People just cling to the old ways because the technology is not mature yet.
- cletus 5y agoPaper ballots are better than any purely electronic form. Like that's not even a debate except by people who are trying to sell electronic voting machines. The gold standard is either print outs from a voting machine or a ballot you fill in with circles with a pencil that a machine can verify. Counting these ballots is nondestructive (unlike punch cards) and highly accurate. Audits of elections involving these can be done easily by hand. As for the 2000 election, this is a whole rabbit hole. You're right the butterfly ballot probably caused miscast votes. But that's user error. Punch cards are a ridiculous form of voting technology. All the recounts weren't about being more accurate. They were about passing punch cards through counting machines that would knock out chads every run through and changing voting standards after the fact (eg pregnant and dimpled chads). Blaming 9/11 and the grand misadventure of the Iraq war on paper ballots is... a stretch. I mean, 9/11 had been in planning for years and probably would've happened anyway. I suspect a war in Iraq would've happened anyway with Gore in office. I mean a good chunk of Democrats (including Hilary Clinton) voted for the Iraqi war resolution. Many of these same people (including Biden) are now threatening to start a war with Russia over Ukraine. > Just one of hundreds of innovations. I disagree. Contracts enforced by the blockchain only have value when the entire context of that contract is on the blockchain. As soon as you leave that system you need traditional infrastructure and systems to enforce contracts and handle disputes.
- SantalBlush 5y ago>But then you make the mistake of thinking because you're really smart and good at this thing you must be smart about something completely different, like oh I don't know the financial system. That's crypto. That's definitely crypto, but you also just described half of HN.
- meowkit 5y ago> imagine you're a smart person who is super knowledgeable about something like software engineering, distributed systems and consensus. That's great. But then you make the mistake of thinking because you're really smart and good at this thing you must be smart about something completely different This is such a bad take that I'll be honest, it makes me angry. Someone can't be super knowledgeable at more than one discipline? More than two? That's complete nonsense.