5 ms·

That’s a pretty hyperbolic response. There’s always a risk that mismanaged use of energy results in us never reaching Kardashev Type 1 (i.e. we destroy the habi

That’s a pretty hyperbolic response. There’s always a risk that mismanaged use of energy results in us never reaching Kardashev Type 1 (i.e. we destroy the habitability of the planet before we get there).

randomhodler84 5y ago
That is true. However I am responding to another sheer Luddite attitude on a tech forum. Hating a new technology for the sake of it is not progress.
- ofrzeta 5y ago
  So is liking/hyping a new technology for the sake of it (or for the sake of getting rich).
  - randomhodler84 5y ago
    Sure, but that doesn’t apply here. I am a technical individual who can make a case for the technology, and have for many years. All you precoiners do is complain that everyone else is getting rich and/or destroying the planet. It Just isn’t so!
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      What case do you want to make about technology though? That it is cool is I think pretty much accepted by everyone. The objection there being just because something is cool doesn't mean we do it especially if its at the detriment to the planet we live on. That it is useful? If you have time, please make that case. To avoid having a flamewar over it, lets try to be concrete and cite an actual project (even if in progress)
      - randomhodler84 5y ago
  - smokey_circles 5y ago
    Sure, but one side can be substantiated. The Satoshi protocol is not about money. It is a distributed, trust-less consensus algorithm. Finance was just a good candidate to start with. But we can expand that much further. Some strange examples I hear about how this is silly: "You can't have a smart contract act as an employer because it doesn't exist" But neither do companies? They're an abstraction that we agree exists, enforced by law. It needs to be enforced by law because of the issue of trust. But if I have a mechanism that removes trust (merkle trees) then what's the issue? The contract will do what it states it does because that's the only option it has. Granted, it's a touch utopian and I'm not advocating for setting this system up tomorrow. But it's absolutely an achievable goal
    - eru 5y ago
      Crypto-currencies and smart contracts change some aspects, but they don't remove trust completely. And people don't want it to remove trust completely. Remember when ethereum forked, because a smart contract many people cared about actually specified something different in its code than what the humans intended it to mean? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
    - newswasboring 5y ago
      > But if I have a mechanism that removes trust (merkle trees) then what's the issue? The contract will do what it states it does because that's the only option it has. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is it does not consider the interface between on chain and real world realities. Some of it is easily doable, like money (if I have a token I have a token), but many are not at all easily doable like land use. I can write I have a piece of land on the chain but that does not give me any control over it. If I have to bring in the government to enforce land usage then why not let them do the owner tracking too? If they disagree with the blockchain its not like I can do anything about it.

randomhodler84 5y ago

That is true. However I am responding to another sheer Luddite attitude on a tech forum. Hating a new technology for the sake of it is not progress.

ofrzeta 5y ago
So is liking/hyping a new technology for the sake of it (or for the sake of getting rich).
- randomhodler84 5y ago
  Sure, but that doesn’t apply here. I am a technical individual who can make a case for the technology, and have for many years. All you precoiners do is complain that everyone else is getting rich and/or destroying the planet. It Just isn’t so!
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    What case do you want to make about technology though? That it is cool is I think pretty much accepted by everyone. The objection there being just because something is cool doesn't mean we do it especially if its at the detriment to the planet we live on. That it is useful? If you have time, please make that case. To avoid having a flamewar over it, lets try to be concrete and cite an actual project (even if in progress)
    - randomhodler84 5y ago
- smokey_circles 5y ago
  Sure, but one side can be substantiated. The Satoshi protocol is not about money. It is a distributed, trust-less consensus algorithm. Finance was just a good candidate to start with. But we can expand that much further. Some strange examples I hear about how this is silly: "You can't have a smart contract act as an employer because it doesn't exist" But neither do companies? They're an abstraction that we agree exists, enforced by law. It needs to be enforced by law because of the issue of trust. But if I have a mechanism that removes trust (merkle trees) then what's the issue? The contract will do what it states it does because that's the only option it has. Granted, it's a touch utopian and I'm not advocating for setting this system up tomorrow. But it's absolutely an achievable goal
  - eru 5y ago
    Crypto-currencies and smart contracts change some aspects, but they don't remove trust completely. And people don't want it to remove trust completely. Remember when ethereum forked, because a smart contract many people cared about actually specified something different in its code than what the humans intended it to mean? See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_DAO_(organization)
  - newswasboring 5y ago
    > But if I have a mechanism that removes trust (merkle trees) then what's the issue? The contract will do what it states it does because that's the only option it has. The problem I have with this line of reasoning is it does not consider the interface between on chain and real world realities. Some of it is easily doable, like money (if I have a token I have a token), but many are not at all easily doable like land use. I can write I have a piece of land on the chain but that does not give me any control over it. If I have to bring in the government to enforce land usage then why not let them do the owner tracking too? If they disagree with the blockchain its not like I can do anything about it.