5 ms·

That's what technical crypto skeptics always do, it's one of the most common reductionist comments you can find on technical forums: - Blockchain is just an in

That's what technical crypto skeptics always do, it's one of the most common reductionist comments you can find on technical forums: - Blockchain is just an inefficient linked list/database - Merkle Trees have existed since the 70s - Distributed systems have existed since the 80s - ZK proofs have existed since the 80s Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus. Usually they throw in a reference to some other unrelated consensus algorithm like Paxos or Raft to seem smart. And if you attempt to highlight some advances in the DLT space, you will be accused of "spouting buzzwords". There's literally no way to communicate with a person who has already decided they don't care.

mnd999 4y ago
Have you considered the possibility that the reason you’re not convincing people is that you’ve just got it wrong?
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  If I was wrong they could just give me a sound argument instead of directing insults at me and throwing "witty" reductionist jabs. Do you think that argument structure is sound? By that logic quantum computing is a scam, because quantum theory has existed for a century.
- everfree 4y ago
  My experience has been the same as c0mptonFP. For every thoughtful and educated comment I receive about blockchain technology, I get more than twenty that either make very basic mistakes in understanding the current state of it, take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless, and/or repeat tired tropes that apply only to the specific design of Bitcoin or have otherwise been overcome by the technology's progression over the last decade (e.g. energy usage, scaling, the oracle problem). Because money is involved, everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on it, even people who have no background in blockchain system design. As a consequence, informed discussions about this technology seem to be a real rarity.
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    >take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless Because it is actually useless. I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved in some particularly obscure fashion is a net loss for everyone involved, including you.
    - everfree 4y ago
      > I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. I've seen a lot of people make that mistake too. A whole ton. But you can't tell me that you form your opinions on new technologies based on listening to people explain them poorly and try to shoehorn them where they don't belong. > Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. They could have been avoided, yes, but someone chose to solve them so now they're solved. I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that nobody should have been allowed to solve those problems? > The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. It's unclear to me what you mean by "sense of struggle". But a decade ago the technology had several unfavorable properties and limitations, and now it no longer has those certain unfavorable properties and limitations. Is that not progress? > You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. What mistake am I making, why is it the same as blockchain critics, and why am I making such a mistake by talking about the quality of the forum discussions I participate in? > The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved I don't frame things that way; I don't view most things in the world as "problems needing to be solved". What I do see is processes that can be streamlined through the use of certain technologies. I don't necessarily believe that this RFC is helpful, or that blockchain is a useful technology in the context of BGP, but you're making a sweeping statement about the nature of all discussion of blockchain technology, a statement that I believe to be overgeneralized and essentially incorrect. > in some particularly obscure fashion Many of the systems that blockchains aim to improve on are already particularly obscure. Naming systems, ownership registries, and financial derivatives come to mind. But more fundamentally, the complexity of a system's software implementation does not directly correlate with its utility as you seem to imply. Plenty of software projects out there are very complex, yet still manage to be very useful. > Because it is actually useless. None of your comment really supports this conclusion.
bertman 4y ago
>who has already decided they don't care Hm, I think it's not because people don't care, but rather because "blockchain" is (for many people) inextricably linked to shady fintech assholes that actually don't care about interesting technical concepts and intricacies behind DLT.
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  For the record, I have met with bank directors, managers for portfolios and asset management, etc. These people are probably the most condescending, obnoxious, ignorant douchebags that I have ever met in my entire life. My confidence in DeFi shot up tenfold after meeting these people
  - throwaway82652 4y ago
    It doesn't really make sense to put your confidence in something questionable because something else happens to be bad. I get that you probably have a better explanation but this comment isn't explaining it and instead is just taking an opportunity to dunk on people, if you want to have serious discussions don't make any more comments like this. If you really want to improve communication then please do your part to communicate better.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
alexnewman 4y ago
You had me until you described paxos and raft as untested.
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  > until you described paxos and raft as untested I said unrelated, not untested. Raft is not an adversarial protocol, it doesn't share the same threat model as blockchains. They fulfil entirely different purposes.
throwaway82652 4y ago
>Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus Because those advances exist in spite of blockchains. I wish blockchains were a useful technology, but they actually aren't. I've seen zero advances in distributed ledgers that are actually helped by blockchains. The use of a blockchain strictly makes it worse. And even past that I've seen very, very few situations where the whole idea of a distributed ledger even makes sense to begin with. If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care, don't waste time going on about merkle trees and consensus algorithms and getting sucked into the same reductionist trap of singling out some minor technical details.
- c0mptonFP 4y ago
  > If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care I purposely didn't, because then I'm committed to defending dozens of attacks. I already do a lot to educate people on DLTs on several platforms. I'm not gonna turn HN discussions into my full-time job. If you don't like it, you can fuck off.
  - rvz 4y ago
    I bet that you will see the same extreme anti-crypto regulars screaming and crying on yet another blockchain, crypto related post on HN again. They won't go away that easily. They are really waiting for the next crypto scam / Defi hack or Ask HN about blockchains or crypto to be posted before doing so and it's very predictable. Anything about posts like this [0], you won't see them. [0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto

mnd999 4y ago

Have you considered the possibility that the reason you’re not convincing people is that you’ve just got it wrong?

c0mptonFP 4y ago
If I was wrong they could just give me a sound argument instead of directing insults at me and throwing "witty" reductionist jabs. Do you think that argument structure is sound? By that logic quantum computing is a scam, because quantum theory has existed for a century.
everfree 4y ago
My experience has been the same as c0mptonFP. For every thoughtful and educated comment I receive about blockchain technology, I get more than twenty that either make very basic mistakes in understanding the current state of it, take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless, and/or repeat tired tropes that apply only to the specific design of Bitcoin or have otherwise been overcome by the technology's progression over the last decade (e.g. energy usage, scaling, the oracle problem). Because money is involved, everyone feels like they have to have an opinion on it, even people who have no background in blockchain system design. As a consequence, informed discussions about this technology seem to be a real rarity.
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  >take personal offense to me even daring to suggest that blockchain technology isn't completely useless Because it is actually useless. I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved in some particularly obscure fashion is a net loss for everyone involved, including you.
  - everfree 4y ago
    > I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. I've seen a lot of people make that mistake too. A whole ton. But you can't tell me that you form your opinions on new technologies based on listening to people explain them poorly and try to shoehorn them where they don't belong. > Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. They could have been avoided, yes, but someone chose to solve them so now they're solved. I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that nobody should have been allowed to solve those problems? > The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. It's unclear to me what you mean by "sense of struggle". But a decade ago the technology had several unfavorable properties and limitations, and now it no longer has those certain unfavorable properties and limitations. Is that not progress? > You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. What mistake am I making, why is it the same as blockchain critics, and why am I making such a mistake by talking about the quality of the forum discussions I participate in? > The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved I don't frame things that way; I don't view most things in the world as "problems needing to be solved". What I do see is processes that can be streamlined through the use of certain technologies. I don't necessarily believe that this RFC is helpful, or that blockchain is a useful technology in the context of BGP, but you're making a sweeping statement about the nature of all discussion of blockchain technology, a statement that I believe to be overgeneralized and essentially incorrect. > in some particularly obscure fashion Many of the systems that blockchains aim to improve on are already particularly obscure. Naming systems, ownership registries, and financial derivatives come to mind. But more fundamentally, the complexity of a system's software implementation does not directly correlate with its utility as you seem to imply. Plenty of software projects out there are very complex, yet still manage to be very useful. > Because it is actually useless. None of your comment really supports this conclusion.

bertman 4y ago

>who has already decided they don't care Hm, I think it's not because people don't care, but rather because "blockchain" is (for many people) inextricably linked to shady fintech assholes that actually don't care about interesting technical concepts and intricacies behind DLT.

c0mptonFP 4y ago
For the record, I have met with bank directors, managers for portfolios and asset management, etc. These people are probably the most condescending, obnoxious, ignorant douchebags that I have ever met in my entire life. My confidence in DeFi shot up tenfold after meeting these people
- throwaway82652 4y ago
  It doesn't really make sense to put your confidence in something questionable because something else happens to be bad. I get that you probably have a better explanation but this comment isn't explaining it and instead is just taking an opportunity to dunk on people, if you want to have serious discussions don't make any more comments like this. If you really want to improve communication then please do your part to communicate better.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

alexnewman 4y ago

You had me until you described paxos and raft as untested.

c0mptonFP 4y ago
> until you described paxos and raft as untested I said unrelated, not untested. Raft is not an adversarial protocol, it doesn't share the same threat model as blockchains. They fulfil entirely different purposes.

throwaway82652 4y ago

>Completely disregarding any advances in cryptography or consensus Because those advances exist in spite of blockchains. I wish blockchains were a useful technology, but they actually aren't. I've seen zero advances in distributed ledgers that are actually helped by blockchains. The use of a blockchain strictly makes it worse. And even past that I've seen very, very few situations where the whole idea of a distributed ledger even makes sense to begin with. If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care, don't waste time going on about merkle trees and consensus algorithms and getting sucked into the same reductionist trap of singling out some minor technical details.

c0mptonFP 4y ago
> If you want to communicate a way this technology is useful then just do it and make me care I purposely didn't, because then I'm committed to defending dozens of attacks. I already do a lot to educate people on DLTs on several platforms. I'm not gonna turn HN discussions into my full-time job. If you don't like it, you can fuck off.
- rvz 4y ago
  I bet that you will see the same extreme anti-crypto regulars screaming and crying on yet another blockchain, crypto related post on HN again. They won't go away that easily. They are really waiting for the next crypto scam / Defi hack or Ask HN about blockchains or crypto to be posted before doing so and it's very predictable. Anything about posts like this [0], you won't see them. [0] https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto https://stripe.com/blog/expanding-global-payouts-with-crypto