6 ms·

There's nothing to defend. More ink has been spilled by some of the top experts in the field explaining that there is no use case for blockchain technology itse

There's nothing to defend. More ink has been spilled by some of the top experts in the field explaining that there is no use case for blockchain technology itself. It's old technology that has been around for a long time. There's nothing unique or special about it. It's interesting what the pro-regulation crypto-currency shills are advocating for. In the US a couple of pro-crypto senators proposed a bill that would introduce regulation to cryptocurrencies under the CFTC. They avoid classifying these things as "securities" in order protect crypto from stronger regulation. Despite these "currencies" quacking and walking like securities. This is more like a compromise made by a mob boss with corrupt government officials: we'll agree to your regulation as long as you agree to look the other way. In other words let's make it look legit and I'll keep scratching your back. What the letters to congress hope to achieve is stronger regulation on what are effectively unregulated securities. If companies want to dabble in crypto-assets let them: they will have to publicly report their activities, disclose their financials, and face the same penalties as those who are caught breaking the rules. I somehow doubt this is the outcome the crypto industry wants. A number of executives have been hauled to court over money laundering and fraud charges. I suspect a great deal more would follow suit were the government properly informed and willing to go after them.

Banana699 4y ago
>It's old technology that has been around for a long time. There's nothing unique or special about it <sigh> I don't know how on earth can people be so confidently wrong, with almost religious fervor backing it up. It's not morally superior to be ignorant. Have you even read the post to the end ? Blockchains do solve a well known problem in distributed systems in a novel way. The main novelty is PoW consensus, a probabilistic equivalent to an Atomic Broadcast algorithm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_broadcast] which ensures that a distributed network of computers all agree on the order of the same set of messages. The protocol uses bits and pieces of ideas that were invented in the 90s (Hash pointer data structures and the idea of PoW itself), but assembles them brilliantly into a novel whole that solves an extremly difficult and decades-old theoritical problem in way unheard of before. You can talk to the moon and back about how it's enviromentally wasteful or doesn't scale or not a currency or an attractive tool for scammers or etc etc etc..., but if you're unwilling to even understand the raw, neutral techonology it is built on, well, here goes all credibility of all your other non-obvious claims.
- agentultra 4y ago
  I'm experienced enough to read what papers and proofs have been published, have been a programmer for longer than not, but don't take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q So they found one way to prevent Sybil attacks that has been a well-known problem. Big deal. Update A "blockchain" is not a novel concept. The PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless. If cryptocurrencies needed defending it's because they're a solution in search of a problem. All of the problems they've found so far appeal to conspiracy theorists: people who don't trust banks, government, and all kinds of things. In the mean time the people who've benefited the most have left thousands of people bereft of their life savings and ruined their lives. My favourite right now are all the scammers who've turned around and stopped ripping off banks and old people and started targeting people who buy NFTs and adverise it on their socials. It'd be freaking hilarious to watch unfold if so many people weren't getting burned in the process.
  - eudoxus 4y ago
    I do find at least amusing to point out you started this thread with a comment that adamantly stated that "There's nothing unique or special about it [blockchains]" Only to immediately follow it up by conceding your main point > "he PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless" Ok, so you shifted the goal post from "there's nothing special about it" to "being novel and neat is insufficient for being 'special'". Whatever special means here. The weirdest part is that your convictions (and concessions) are based on the Bitcoin whitepaper, which is quite literally the oldest part of modern day blockchains/cryptocurrencies. Nakamoto style PoW consensus and the UTXO model bitcoin uses - never mind being very much novel and "special" - is the bedrock of the past 13 years of distributed systems and cryptographic research. I'm more than happy to walk you through the landscape in question and the novel, neat, and useful things therein, but you seem quite content in your veil of ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong.
    - Kbelicius 4y ago

Banana699 4y ago

>It's old technology that has been around for a long time. There's nothing unique or special about it <sigh> I don't know how on earth can people be so confidently wrong, with almost religious fervor backing it up. It's not morally superior to be ignorant. Have you even read the post to the end ? Blockchains do solve a well known problem in distributed systems in a novel way. The main novelty is PoW consensus, a probabilistic equivalent to an Atomic Broadcast algorithm [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_broadcast https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_broadcast] which ensures that a distributed network of computers all agree on the order of the same set of messages. The protocol uses bits and pieces of ideas that were invented in the 90s (Hash pointer data structures and the idea of PoW itself), but assembles them brilliantly into a novel whole that solves an extremly difficult and decades-old theoritical problem in way unheard of before. You can talk to the moon and back about how it's enviromentally wasteful or doesn't scale or not a currency or an attractive tool for scammers or etc etc etc..., but if you're unwilling to even understand the raw, neutral techonology it is built on, well, here goes all credibility of all your other non-obvious claims.

agentultra 4y ago
I'm experienced enough to read what papers and proofs have been published, have been a programmer for longer than not, but don't take my word for it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nv0Ol-R5Q So they found one way to prevent Sybil attacks that has been a well-known problem. Big deal. Update A "blockchain" is not a novel concept. The PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless. If cryptocurrencies needed defending it's because they're a solution in search of a problem. All of the problems they've found so far appeal to conspiracy theorists: people who don't trust banks, government, and all kinds of things. In the mean time the people who've benefited the most have left thousands of people bereft of their life savings and ruined their lives. My favourite right now are all the scammers who've turned around and stopped ripping off banks and old people and started targeting people who buy NFTs and adverise it on their socials. It'd be freaking hilarious to watch unfold if so many people weren't getting burned in the process.
- eudoxus 4y ago
  I do find at least amusing to point out you started this thread with a comment that adamantly stated that "There's nothing unique or special about it [blockchains]" Only to immediately follow it up by conceding your main point > "he PoW system used is one way to prevent Sybil attacks when distributing work among untrusted peers, and that's it. Novel, neat, but useless" Ok, so you shifted the goal post from "there's nothing special about it" to "being novel and neat is insufficient for being 'special'". Whatever special means here. The weirdest part is that your convictions (and concessions) are based on the Bitcoin whitepaper, which is quite literally the oldest part of modern day blockchains/cryptocurrencies. Nakamoto style PoW consensus and the UTXO model bitcoin uses - never mind being very much novel and "special" - is the bedrock of the past 13 years of distributed systems and cryptographic research. I'm more than happy to walk you through the landscape in question and the novel, neat, and useful things therein, but you seem quite content in your veil of ignorance. Feel free to prove me wrong.
  - Kbelicius 4y ago