5 ms·

I personally take a hesitant approach to crypto/blockchain technology. I'm open to using it where it's legitimately better than other approaches, but for the va

by r00bot 4y ago

I personally take a hesitant approach to crypto/blockchain technology. I'm open to using it where it's legitimately better than other approaches, but for the vast, vast majority of applications traditional methods are always going to be better than shoe-horned decentralization. It's very unfortunate that the grifters have given the technology such a bad name when, like any technology, it has applications it excels in and others it doesn't. We're still definitely in the phase of working out what, if anything, blockchain is better (than centralised implementations) for. And it sucks that that search is being negatively impacted by all the grifters. In the future I wouldn't be surprised if we saw 99.99% of blockchain stuff dead, but the small percentage that survive could disrupt some industries (I'm not convinced finance is one of those industries though lol).

dmitriid 4y ago
> like any technology, it has applications it excels in Name five.
- r00bot 4y ago
  I don't really think there are five applications it excels in, but there might be in the future..? Like I said, we're still working out what it's good for. I've seen promising applications but nothing I'd say is obviously better than traditional technology. To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion.
  - dmitriid 4y ago
    You said it has applications it excels at. Turns out "maybe in the future" and "we're still figuring out". So. No applications it excels at. > To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion. It's been 13 years. When will dismissing it become mature? In another 13 years? Or maybe the tech is just bad.
- dane-pgp 4y ago
  1. Permissionless, censorship-resistant global money transfer 2. Smart contracts 3. Append-only logs synchronised between mutually distrusting parties 4. Decentralised identities 5. Microtransactions for online games and to replace web advertising
  - tester756 4y ago
    >1. Permissionless, censorship-resistant global money transfer >5. Microtransactions for online games and to replace web advertising how money transfer and microtransactions are different?
    - dane-pgp 4y ago
      They are (at least) two separate use cases, even though they are both examples of sending money. (You could equally say that they are all examples of sending data). 1. Some people want to be able to send large amounts of money internationally to their family in a country which has currency controls and "official" exchange rates. Others want to be able to send funds to organisations that have been banned by traditional money transmitters, such as Wikileaks, or protest groups, or adult content, or cannabis. 5. Separate groups of people don't have a problem with their government's fiscal or censorship policies, but simply want to be able to buy an emote or a skin in an online game, or to listen to a piece of music or read an article without being tracked around the web or needing to wire 50 cents from their bank in Mongolia to the service provider's bank in Cyprus.
      - salawat 4y ago
        1. The problem there is exactly why the space is going to remain a reserve for fundamentally illegal activity. Arguably it shouldn't be. I get that. That still doesn't get me any closer to me suggesting anyone's grandma hop into Web3. 5. So you're still being tracked, because there isn't a company around that isn't monetizing viewership data. Also, if you're fine with fiscal policies, why are you hesitant to wire? Sounds to me like you're dissatisfied with your host country's fiscal controls, or service provider's offerings. Look, control over financial networks is one of the most powerful soft control mechanisms on the planet. You will not work around that. Government is slow to catch up, but I assure you, these folks aren't stupid anywhere close to 100% of the time. The fact regulation is crystalizing around crypto as fast as it is without taking the multi-century learning experience trad-fi did is evidence enough of that. If it comes down to "a bunch of nerds created an unregulable financial system" I can pretty much guarantee it'll get gobbled by trad-fi snd re-centralized. In fact, anyone could roll their own financial networks without using banks/Visa/you name it. No one has because we've made laws that specifically increase the barrier to entry because finance is the spine that provides support for all manner of economic activity, which includes the illegal stuff, and Government is putatively in the business of making sure that the illegal stuff doesn't see the light of day. I just do not see the compelling argument that'll carry weight to switch someone from "financial system that makes crime hard" to "financial system that makes crime easy" and feel alright about it. You have to already accept that crime is just an endemic human phenomena, and this is just a rebalancing of the spectrum. Given you've got much more efficient implementations of your other use cases available, this is the sticking point for me. No people I've spoken to and laid out what Web3 really is, even with the most charitable framing gets passed that. If I can't convince people it's a good idea with full disclosure in effect, I'm not sure it's something worth pushing forward.

by r00bot 4y ago

dmitriid 4y ago

> like any technology, it has applications it excels in Name five.

r00bot 4y ago
I don't really think there are five applications it excels in, but there might be in the future..? Like I said, we're still working out what it's good for. I've seen promising applications but nothing I'd say is obviously better than traditional technology. To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion.
- dmitriid 4y ago
  You said it has applications it excels at. Turns out "maybe in the future" and "we're still figuring out". So. No applications it excels at. > To dismiss the entire technology because of (admittedly a lot of) grifters is premature in my opinion. It's been 13 years. When will dismissing it become mature? In another 13 years? Or maybe the tech is just bad.
dane-pgp 4y ago
1. Permissionless, censorship-resistant global money transfer 2. Smart contracts 3. Append-only logs synchronised between mutually distrusting parties 4. Decentralised identities 5. Microtransactions for online games and to replace web advertising
- tester756 4y ago
  >1. Permissionless, censorship-resistant global money transfer >5. Microtransactions for online games and to replace web advertising how money transfer and microtransactions are different?
  - dane-pgp 4y ago
    They are (at least) two separate use cases, even though they are both examples of sending money. (You could equally say that they are all examples of sending data). 1. Some people want to be able to send large amounts of money internationally to their family in a country which has currency controls and "official" exchange rates. Others want to be able to send funds to organisations that have been banned by traditional money transmitters, such as Wikileaks, or protest groups, or adult content, or cannabis. 5. Separate groups of people don't have a problem with their government's fiscal or censorship policies, but simply want to be able to buy an emote or a skin in an online game, or to listen to a piece of music or read an article without being tracked around the web or needing to wire 50 cents from their bank in Mongolia to the service provider's bank in Cyprus.
    - salawat 4y ago
      1. The problem there is exactly why the space is going to remain a reserve for fundamentally illegal activity. Arguably it shouldn't be. I get that. That still doesn't get me any closer to me suggesting anyone's grandma hop into Web3. 5. So you're still being tracked, because there isn't a company around that isn't monetizing viewership data. Also, if you're fine with fiscal policies, why are you hesitant to wire? Sounds to me like you're dissatisfied with your host country's fiscal controls, or service provider's offerings. Look, control over financial networks is one of the most powerful soft control mechanisms on the planet. You will not work around that. Government is slow to catch up, but I assure you, these folks aren't stupid anywhere close to 100% of the time. The fact regulation is crystalizing around crypto as fast as it is without taking the multi-century learning experience trad-fi did is evidence enough of that. If it comes down to "a bunch of nerds created an unregulable financial system" I can pretty much guarantee it'll get gobbled by trad-fi snd re-centralized. In fact, anyone could roll their own financial networks without using banks/Visa/you name it. No one has because we've made laws that specifically increase the barrier to entry because finance is the spine that provides support for all manner of economic activity, which includes the illegal stuff, and Government is putatively in the business of making sure that the illegal stuff doesn't see the light of day. I just do not see the compelling argument that'll carry weight to switch someone from "financial system that makes crime hard" to "financial system that makes crime easy" and feel alright about it. You have to already accept that crime is just an endemic human phenomena, and this is just a rebalancing of the spectrum. Given you've got much more efficient implementations of your other use cases available, this is the sticking point for me. No people I've spoken to and laid out what Web3 really is, even with the most charitable framing gets passed that. If I can't convince people it's a good idea with full disclosure in effect, I'm not sure it's something worth pushing forward.