7 ms·

The new bit is trivial public lookup and membership transfer without relying on a central data store or authority. That is a new capability and allows for new

The new bit is trivial public lookup and membership transfer without relying on a central data store or authority. That is a new capability and allows for new things.

dmitriid 5y ago
1. "Gated community" is centralized by default. 2. Literally no new thing has come out of this 3. Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a "gated community"
- gonehome 5y ago
  I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. If you’re right you can look back smugly. If you’re wrong you’ll eventually figure it out (or not), won’t matter to me. I think you’re probably wrong.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    > I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. Ah. The inevitable ad hominem argument. > I think you’re probably wrong. See, the difference between you and me lies in this "probably". You believe, with nothing to back your beliefs. I look at reality (including the reality that I worked at a company that worked with memberships, ticketing, "gated community access" etc.). And I evaluate it for what it is, not for what I believe it is.
    - gonehome 5y ago
      It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it is”) and will just argue in favor of that conclusion. You’re right the difference is in the “probably”, but you’re wrong about what it means. I’m not so certain, but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists. Perhaps unfair for me to dismiss you as early as I did, but I just suspected your reply wasn’t in good faith.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > and will just argue in favor of that conclusion Because reality doesn't care about your "probably"s. Note how you immediately started calling this discussion "this type of discourse" and "you made up your mind" immediately after I simply listed facts. > but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists There's a difference between "recognizing new capabilities" and "wishful thinking". Unsurprisingly, when faced with facts crypto proponents immediately fall back to "you just don't understand", "you're not curious", "future will show you're wrong" etc. Facts are: - the absolute vast majority of memberships imply "a central/centralized authority that verifies membership". That's what "gated community" is - Blockchains make even the simplest act of membership unnecessarily complicated, and makes more complex interactions nearly impossible. - It's on the crypto shills to show that this tech offers anything new or interesting beyond "oh, this is new tech with wonderful new capabilities". So far, at closer inspection, the people claiming that have precisely zero knowledge on the topic and haven't thought about anything beyond the simplest use cases. Without fail, in 100% of cases this is the case. - There's a very minor very fleeting possibility that globally verifiable membership in a group is useful, for large enough groups. However, looking at every single global group (largest being football fans, for example), there's literally zero indication that blockchains and NFTs can offer even a sliver of value, no matter how many "probably"s you throw in there. Masons managed to create a global secret society without blockchain, or computers. But do tell me how "I'm not curious" or "probably wrong". If only wide-eyed crypto enthusiasts were curious themselves.
        gonehome 5y ago
        Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about. "Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc. There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard.

The new bit is trivial public lookup and membership transfer without relying on a central data store or authority. That is a new capability and allows for new things.

dmitriid 5y ago

1. "Gated community" is centralized by default. 2. Literally no new thing has come out of this 3. Not to mention use cases where you wouldn't want to advertise your membership in a "gated community"

gonehome 5y ago
I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. If you’re right you can look back smugly. If you’re wrong you’ll eventually figure it out (or not), won’t matter to me. I think you’re probably wrong.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  > I’m not going to argue with someone that’s just looking to win rather than actually be curious about stuff. Ah. The inevitable ad hominem argument. > I think you’re probably wrong. See, the difference between you and me lies in this "probably". You believe, with nothing to back your beliefs. I look at reality (including the reality that I worked at a company that worked with memberships, ticketing, "gated community access" etc.). And I evaluate it for what it is, not for what I believe it is.
  - gonehome 5y ago
    It’s not an ad hominem - it’s a critique of the type of discourse. You’ve already made up your mind as evidenced by this reply (what you claim is “reality as it is”) and will just argue in favor of that conclusion. You’re right the difference is in the “probably”, but you’re wrong about what it means. I’m not so certain, but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists. Perhaps unfair for me to dismiss you as early as I did, but I just suspected your reply wasn’t in good faith.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > and will just argue in favor of that conclusion Because reality doesn't care about your "probably"s. Note how you immediately started calling this discussion "this type of discourse" and "you made up your mind" immediately after I simply listed facts. > but I at least recognize a new capability when it exists There's a difference between "recognizing new capabilities" and "wishful thinking". Unsurprisingly, when faced with facts crypto proponents immediately fall back to "you just don't understand", "you're not curious", "future will show you're wrong" etc. Facts are: - the absolute vast majority of memberships imply "a central/centralized authority that verifies membership". That's what "gated community" is - Blockchains make even the simplest act of membership unnecessarily complicated, and makes more complex interactions nearly impossible. - It's on the crypto shills to show that this tech offers anything new or interesting beyond "oh, this is new tech with wonderful new capabilities". So far, at closer inspection, the people claiming that have precisely zero knowledge on the topic and haven't thought about anything beyond the simplest use cases. Without fail, in 100% of cases this is the case. - There's a very minor very fleeting possibility that globally verifiable membership in a group is useful, for large enough groups. However, looking at every single global group (largest being football fans, for example), there's literally zero indication that blockchains and NFTs can offer even a sliver of value, no matter how many "probably"s you throw in there. Masons managed to create a global secret society without blockchain, or computers. But do tell me how "I'm not curious" or "probably wrong". If only wide-eyed crypto enthusiasts were curious themselves.
      - gonehome 5y ago
        Come on - you didn't "simply list facts" you stated wildly confident and extreme opinions and then you labeled them facts. That you can't or won't recognize this is what I'm talking about. "Literally no new thing", "I look at reality" (implying I only make stuff up), "wishful thinking", "precisely zero knowledge", "Without fail in 100% of cases this is the case", etc. etc. There are interesting conversations to have on this topic, but it's hard to have them with someone only willing to engage in this way. It requires some amount of willingness to be uncertain of what you currently believe and you're not. The more you reply, the more you confirm my initial suspicion of bad faith. I'm not some blind crypto nut (at best I'm cautiously optimistic), but I find it hard to engage with the baseline anti-crypto hostility on HN which makes interesting conversation hard.