3 ms·
Consensus on what, is the question. Cryptos have a billion solutions for moving stuff around in crypto space, not very many for actually linking it with the rea
by rcxdude 4y ago
Consensus on what, is the question. Cryptos have a billion solutions for moving stuff around in crypto space, not very many for actually linking it with the real world, which is in fact what a very large fraction of the existing financial infrastructure is built to do. For the length of time crypto has been promising to change everything, it's really lacking in killer applications (basically the only value I actually see is private/censorship-resistant transactions, but the chains which actually focus on that tend not to be seeing anywhere near as much interest, and there's a bunch of baggage associated with that because it's most useful for enabling harmful activities and money laundering).
- idiotsecant 4y agoConsensus in this case has a very specific technical meaning. You're trying to start some kind of philosophical discussion but you're not using the right words.
- rcxdude 4y agoI know what the technical meaning is, but if you're going to argue for the usefulness of crypto you need to argue why the consensus that crypto achieves is actually useful, instead of just acting as if this is obvious.
- idiotsecant 4y agoNo, you don't need to demonstrate that at all. This could just as easily be a decentralized database for counting the number of jellybeans that exist on pluto and that word would still mean the same thing.
- rcxdude 4y agoYes you do. If you wish to argue that 'if crypto then useful', and you want to use the proposition 'if crypto then consensus', then you also need to provide something to support the proposition 'if consensus then useful'. You can substitude jellybeans on pluto or whatever else you want in the middle, the point is there are two steps necessary to the argument and only one is actually well supported.