5 ms·

If your point is that oft-cited-never-correct "this is early days / this is like the early dot com era" notion - I want to dispel that myth for you. There has

by voz_ 4y ago

If your point is that oft-cited-never-correct "this is early days / this is like the early dot com era" notion - I want to dispel that myth for you. There has been no real value, product, or worth created here. With the rise of public internet spaces in the 1990s, online shopping, web search, and more - the value was immediate and apparent. Of course there were bad ideas, scams, etc, but the major difference between that and crypto is that Web3 crypto is 100% bull. There is no value here. I have yet to see a single worthwhile crypto product out there, anywhere. Do you know why? Because the decentralization it offers is a mix of a myth and meaningless - in cases where you can get it, you don't need it. Everywhere else, its actually just a different centralization. Oh and the protocol is just giant inefficient linked list, poorly distributed.

abetusk 4y ago
People forget how hyped the internet was circa 1996-2000. During the early days, one of the most popular sites was a web cam pointed at a coffee mug [0] and a webcam pointed at a "lifecaster" showing her everyday life [1]. Email was confusing and misunderstood [2]. Startups were laughed at when they said you would buy pet food online [3] or pay your parking tickets online [4]. Both are so commonplace now as to barely be worth mentioning. You absolutely could be right. Maybe cryptocurrency and the surrounding technology is a fad or hype without any substance but you're making an assumption that the rollout of cryptocurrency adoption should follow the same schedule as dot.com startups. For a point of reference, Linux was created circa 1991 [5] with the GNU project started in 1983, giving about a decade or two, depending on where you start, from "widespread" Linux/FOSS adoption. You're stating that "there has been no real value, produce, or worth created here" bluntly without really backing it up. There are plenty of products and use cases, just none that you would consider valid. People use cryptocurrency to purchase goods and services, just not the ones you might find valid. People use cryptocurrency to support organizations they favor, just not organizations you might favor. People are using cryptocurrency to explore different social media models, just not models you would find valid. My plea is in line with the HN terms of service. Please have curious conversation. Molly White has valid things to say and, as far as I can tell, does research the claims she makes. I don't like the tenor so I feel like I need to push back here and elsewhere to put things in context. Your casual, snarky, dismissiveness doesn't add a lot to the conversation. Would it add anything to the conversation if I said "XML is a poorly designed LaTeX, improperly implemented"? Or "Javascript is a poor attempt at a Lisp implementation"? "Twitter is public text messaging, just done poorly"? The reductions gloss over the complexities of the ecosystem and utility. It should be a red flag that there may be something you don't understand if you're so quick to cite idiocy. To your points: Decentralization means different things to different people. In the context of Bitcoin, or many other cryptocurrencies, it means that anyone can participate given the resources, without the need to apply for credentials. Miners can join and participate in the network by standing up hardware. Contrast this with starting a business, pushing an app on the apple store, publishing a game on steam, etc. Note that this is how the internet was also designed. Anyone wanting to participate in the network ostensibly could. I think to dismiss Bitcoin as an "inefficient linked list, poorly distributed" is to dismiss a lot of good ideas and research ideas. Bitcoin may have some flaws, maybe critically so, but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-yZ-31j9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-yZ-31j9A [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com#Legacy [4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/?ref_=ttls_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/?ref_=ttls_li_tt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#History
- voz_ 4y ago
  nah
- Kranar 4y ago
  The world-wide-web back in the 90s was a very weird place and tons of people thought it would amount to nothing more than a fad, including a Nobel Prize winning economist: https://i.redd.it/tcwp3xnsewo21.jpg https://i.redd.it/tcwp3xnsewo21.jpg Back then, it was stuff like AOL that was considered the established and proper networking service, and the web was just a circus of trolls and buffoons. Also didn't Twitch start off as a site to view a webcam attached to some guy's head 24/7. I also remember a website where you could buy a pixel for a dollar, and the entire website consisted of 1 million pixels. I'm not saying that cryptocurrency will amount to anything, I'm mostly saying that no one here knows. HN has a kind of reputation for being incredibly dismissive of technology and missing the boat on a lot of things, failing to recognize the big picture, and to be fair it's not even an HN thing; most people fail to see the big picture. Afterall, who the heck needs Dropbox? Just trivially setup an FTP server mounting it locally with curlftpfs and then use SVN on the mounted file system. Right guys?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Eisenstein 4y ago
  > but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it. The problem here is that the creator of Bitcoin was following a philosophical motivation, not a scientific one. The 'economics' behind it are completely misguided and appear to be based on the notion that taking power away from powerful entities and distributing amongst individuals will remove the problems associated with capitalist systems. It does not consider that people created these entities and removing power from systems that rely on it creates power vacuums which society abhors. Things just end up getting to the same place a different way, but redoing all of the bad outcomes that had to be painfully learned and many times almost led to humanity scrapping capitalism and free markets altogether because of the damage done. When you approach problems thinking you have the answer before you start looking for the solution, then you get things like Soviet Russia and you get things like eugenics and you get things like Bitcoin. I am sorry but by saying 'it has critical flaws' and then also claiming that it it is some work of science and can be used for progress in economics and technology and finance, you neglect totally that it's first and most critical flaw is that it is the product of a dogma which is completely removed from reality in two of those areas.

by voz_ 4y ago

abetusk 4y ago

People forget how hyped the internet was circa 1996-2000. During the early days, one of the most popular sites was a web cam pointed at a coffee mug [0] and a webcam pointed at a "lifecaster" showing her everyday life [1]. Email was confusing and misunderstood [2]. Startups were laughed at when they said you would buy pet food online [3] or pay your parking tickets online [4]. Both are so commonplace now as to barely be worth mentioning. You absolutely could be right. Maybe cryptocurrency and the surrounding technology is a fad or hype without any substance but you're making an assumption that the rollout of cryptocurrency adoption should follow the same schedule as dot.com startups. For a point of reference, Linux was created circa 1991 [5] with the GNU project started in 1983, giving about a decade or two, depending on where you start, from "widespread" Linux/FOSS adoption. You're stating that "there has been no real value, produce, or worth created here" bluntly without really backing it up. There are plenty of products and use cases, just none that you would consider valid. People use cryptocurrency to purchase goods and services, just not the ones you might find valid. People use cryptocurrency to support organizations they favor, just not organizations you might favor. People are using cryptocurrency to explore different social media models, just not models you would find valid. My plea is in line with the HN terms of service. Please have curious conversation. Molly White has valid things to say and, as far as I can tell, does research the claims she makes. I don't like the tenor so I feel like I need to push back here and elsewhere to put things in context. Your casual, snarky, dismissiveness doesn't add a lot to the conversation. Would it add anything to the conversation if I said "XML is a poorly designed LaTeX, improperly implemented"? Or "Javascript is a poor attempt at a Lisp implementation"? "Twitter is public text messaging, just done poorly"? The reductions gloss over the complexities of the ecosystem and utility. It should be a red flag that there may be something you don't understand if you're so quick to cite idiocy. To your points: Decentralization means different things to different people. In the context of Bitcoin, or many other cryptocurrencies, it means that anyone can participate given the resources, without the need to apply for credentials. Miners can join and participate in the network by standing up hardware. Contrast this with starting a business, pushing an app on the apple store, publishing a game on steam, etc. Note that this is how the internet was also designed. Anyone wanting to participate in the network ostensibly could. I think to dismiss Bitcoin as an "inefficient linked list, poorly distributed" is to dismiss a lot of good ideas and research ideas. Bitcoin may have some flaws, maybe critically so, but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trojan_Room_coffee_pot [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jennifer_Ringley [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-yZ-31j9A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95-yZ-31j9A [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com#Legacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pets.com#Legacy [4] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/?ref_=ttls_li_tt https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0256408/?ref_=ttls_li_tt [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux#History

voz_ 4y ago
nah
Kranar 4y ago
The world-wide-web back in the 90s was a very weird place and tons of people thought it would amount to nothing more than a fad, including a Nobel Prize winning economist: https://i.redd.it/tcwp3xnsewo21.jpg https://i.redd.it/tcwp3xnsewo21.jpg Back then, it was stuff like AOL that was considered the established and proper networking service, and the web was just a circus of trolls and buffoons. Also didn't Twitch start off as a site to view a webcam attached to some guy's head 24/7. I also remember a website where you could buy a pixel for a dollar, and the entire website consisted of 1 million pixels. I'm not saying that cryptocurrency will amount to anything, I'm mostly saying that no one here knows. HN has a kind of reputation for being incredibly dismissive of technology and missing the boat on a lot of things, failing to recognize the big picture, and to be fair it's not even an HN thing; most people fail to see the big picture. Afterall, who the heck needs Dropbox? Just trivially setup an FTP server mounting it locally with curlftpfs and then use SVN on the mounted file system. Right guys?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
Eisenstein 4y ago
> but it sits at the middle of theoretical computer science, economics and finance in a novel way that responds to a lot of shortcomings of attempts before it. The problem here is that the creator of Bitcoin was following a philosophical motivation, not a scientific one. The 'economics' behind it are completely misguided and appear to be based on the notion that taking power away from powerful entities and distributing amongst individuals will remove the problems associated with capitalist systems. It does not consider that people created these entities and removing power from systems that rely on it creates power vacuums which society abhors. Things just end up getting to the same place a different way, but redoing all of the bad outcomes that had to be painfully learned and many times almost led to humanity scrapping capitalism and free markets altogether because of the damage done. When you approach problems thinking you have the answer before you start looking for the solution, then you get things like Soviet Russia and you get things like eugenics and you get things like Bitcoin. I am sorry but by saying 'it has critical flaws' and then also claiming that it it is some work of science and can be used for progress in economics and technology and finance, you neglect totally that it's first and most critical flaw is that it is the product of a dogma which is completely removed from reality in two of those areas.