4 ms·

I know everyone will laugh at me for saying this but... we are still in the early stages of cryptocurrency from a technology development perspective. I'm not a

I know everyone will laugh at me for saying this but... we are still in the early stages of cryptocurrency from a technology development perspective. I'm not aware of anyway to securely scale a decentralized cryptocurrency without recursive proofs of correctness that are fast to prove and fast to verify. Every year since 2016 I've seen major progress being made in this area but we have far to go. We just barely got there in 2020. We could probably build a scalable decentralized cryptocurrency in 2020, maybe. Give it another 5-10 years of advancement like we saw over the last 5 and you will have the ability to build scalable decentralized cryptocurrencies. That doesn't mean people will build them or that even if they do the built systems won't suffer from serious drawbacks. It is a long road ahead. Now there are other problems to solve as well, but everything i being gated right now by proofs of correctness. We have a steam engine, we can put it on rails and it can pull a small load. Unfortunately the expectation has been set that we have train that can move millions of people. The fact that we can't meet this expectation doesn't mean that steam engines or engines in general are bad.

psychlops 4y ago
It's fascinating the amount of repetitive comments that believe there should be some sort of time limit for a technology to succeed. It's not clear to me where this line of thinking comes from, the implication being that if something doesn't work after x years, people should just give up and go back to the old ways.
- EthanHeilman 4y ago
  It's the confusion between: It is unlikely that Charles Babbage is going to be able to build his difference engine and even if he does it is so complex and so prone to failure that it probably will never be commercially viable. vs. It is unlikely that Charles Babbage is going to be able to build his difference engine, thus proving computers can't work and have no utility.

psychlops 4y ago

It's fascinating the amount of repetitive comments that believe there should be some sort of time limit for a technology to succeed. It's not clear to me where this line of thinking comes from, the implication being that if something doesn't work after x years, people should just give up and go back to the old ways.

EthanHeilman 4y ago
It's the confusion between: It is unlikely that Charles Babbage is going to be able to build his difference engine and even if he does it is so complex and so prone to failure that it probably will never be commercially viable. vs. It is unlikely that Charles Babbage is going to be able to build his difference engine, thus proving computers can't work and have no utility.