6 ms·

Despite the bad rap, the blockchain tech community has addressed many (not all) issues represented in the paper - Some of ICOs were successful and brought grea

Despite the bad rap, the blockchain tech community has addressed many (not all) issues represented in the paper - Some of ICOs were successful and brought great products and also returns to their investors after 2018-2019 market slump - good examples include e.g. Storj, Aave, Chainlink - hit rate is similar as with any startup (~1/12 for high success) - There are real world use cases for blockchains, including stablecoin, trading, etc. though this has progressed much slower than expected - The community is not fixed with an idea that everything can be a currency without inflation and it automatically grows in value - there needs to be real revenue streams - Treasury can be controlled by DAO voting, instead of an opaque private entity (Uniswap, Aave, MakerDAO, others) - it’s no longer easy to fraud ICO investors if executed properly - Protocols can have revenue models - you are no longer buying a cryptocurrency, but a governance token - Smart contract and wallet tooling have improved - it is easier to understand smart contracts - Many more people can read smart contracts - EVM is no longer the only horse in the town, but smart contracts are written in Rust, even in JavaScript and Python However there are still risks in the cryptocurrency industry, unrelatead to ICOs - Opaque centralised exchanges and entities (hello FTX) - Scaling new ideas that lack sound foundation too fast, like Terra and USDT and other algorithmic stablecoins - Scams, though this is mostly enabled by web 2.0 social media and roots deeper in the bad moderation of Internet communications

itake 4y ago
> There are real world use cases for blockchains The examples you gave are problems created by blockchains.
- unusualmonkey 4y ago
  Isn't the irony beautiful? Blockchain is real! You can use it to store USD-like tokens and trade different coins!
  - Guthur 4y ago
    As real as any math, which is not so much. It's imaginary, just like USD. The lack of link to the physical reality which we all share is in my opinion why all these fiat systems are prone to some form of perversion.
- ntonozzi 4y ago
  For the most part I agree, but Storj seems like it is at least attempting to solve a problem not created by blockchain: https://www.storj.io https://www.storj.io.
  - pclmulqdq 4y ago
    Storj, filecoin, and IPFS are all attempts at this problem. They don't work particularly efficiently, though, in comparison with S3 or comparable storage systems. Storage is already a commodity service, so adding a whole load of cryptographic work to prove you're still available is not an optimal thing to add to that commodity.
    - Galanwe 4y ago
      I tend to think the web as we see it today is made on a lot of shortcuts made for the sake of simplicity and performance. There will be no free lunch, if we want something more distributed, reliable, secure, we will need to make compromises on simplicity and performance.
      - zwkrt 4y ago
        Lunch can in fact be free if you skip it. I feel market forces will almost always prefer a centralized (I.e., marginally cheaper) solution so long as it is robust enough. I would have to imagine an entire economic and cultural shift to imagine S3 being usurped by a decentralized solution. Sometimes centralization is a benefit because it gives you someone to invoice/sue if it breaks.
        Galanwe 4y ago
        I agree with you, and that's what makes me sad. The current internet, with all its shortcomings, has created an impossible standard for alternative solutions that would be more secure / free to reach.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago
Galanwe 4y ago
Good points, unfortunately HN will blindly downvote anything crypto optimistic.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  HN should just add this comment by default to every crypto discussion. It is parroted practically every time people get offended that others aren't convinced by their arguments.
  - Galanwe 4y ago
    > It is parroted practically every time people get offended that others aren't convinced by their arguments. Which side is not listening to other's arguments? I don't see any argument against crypto in general, except "I don't believe" or "I don't think it solves something I know of". These are not arguments, these are also not refutable. As a practitioner of finance for 15 years, from front to back, vanilla to exotic, tech to investment, I've spent hours on HN to explain that yes, there are tremendous advantages to blockchain in finance. Yet by the very definition of 1 user = 1 vote, it just takes a 22yo web developer to think "meh, no, it's just scams". HN is good for a lot of stuff, but when it comes to something that is beyond the understanding of the average developer, there is not point for a few specialists trying to convince a mass of nay sayers.
    - zwkrt 4y ago
      This is so strange. You have been in HN long enough to know that this forum used to be very pro-crypto/coin. After a decade or more of failed promises, failed currencies, scam after scam, and billions of dollars in value squandered, HN is only just in the last year starting to take a more critical stance.
      - unmole 4y ago
        > that this forum used to be very pro-crypto/coin Huh? I've been on HN for a long time and I don't remember it ever being pro-crypto. People got excited about BTC and ETH in the old days but HN was one of the few places on the internet where people were always sceptical of the crypto hype.
p1necone 4y ago
> There are real world use cases for blockchains, including stablecoin, trading, etc. though this has progressed much slower than expected Speculation is not a use case. The normal argument is that trading helps create liquidity, but liquidity for what?
- junofan 4y ago
  I mean you can do nearly free nearly instant cross-border wires with no bank fuckery. Definitely nice if you have to do this a lot.
  - unusualmonkey 4y ago
    You can do this without blockchain. At a fundamental level it's pretty simple: Have account A in currency Y. Have account B in currency X. When account A receives funds, release funds from account B. This is how companies like wise.com work. The complicated part is the regulation and reporting needed for cross-border transactions. To be fair to crypto, it does offer one way of disconnecting the two accounts - rather than having any trust between them, you can simply use a trusted distributed ledger. This in theory creates a marketplace. (Keeping in mind that any trusted system could achieve the same goal, just happens that you can do this with crypto). Of course, it does so by adding cost, complexity, and maybe making your transactions public. The real 'benefit' is that because crypto is new, and wild west, is that there's no guarantee that accounts A and B are complying with regulation and reporting needed for cross-border transactions (or even banking in general). As such on the surface it can seem like this is a cheaper and easier alternative - but only because it's avoiding the problem, not solving it. Given enough time and countries will likely crack down on this.
    - int_19h 4y ago
      The complicated part is the outright legal prohibitions on moving money. Say, if you have family in country X that you need to send money to, and country X that happens to be under sanctions for decades because chickenhawk politicians in country Y need some red meat to throw to their electorate. And sure, the countries are already cracking down on it, just as they've been cracking down on Hawala before. So far, such attempts to regulate seem to have the most effect on miner operations and speculation, not on meaningful movement of money.

itake 4y ago

> There are real world use cases for blockchains The examples you gave are problems created by blockchains.

unusualmonkey 4y ago
Isn't the irony beautiful? Blockchain is real! You can use it to store USD-like tokens and trade different coins!
- Guthur 4y ago
  As real as any math, which is not so much. It's imaginary, just like USD. The lack of link to the physical reality which we all share is in my opinion why all these fiat systems are prone to some form of perversion.
ntonozzi 4y ago
For the most part I agree, but Storj seems like it is at least attempting to solve a problem not created by blockchain: https://www.storj.io https://www.storj.io.
- pclmulqdq 4y ago
  Storj, filecoin, and IPFS are all attempts at this problem. They don't work particularly efficiently, though, in comparison with S3 or comparable storage systems. Storage is already a commodity service, so adding a whole load of cryptographic work to prove you're still available is not an optimal thing to add to that commodity.
  - Galanwe 4y ago
    I tend to think the web as we see it today is made on a lot of shortcuts made for the sake of simplicity and performance. There will be no free lunch, if we want something more distributed, reliable, secure, we will need to make compromises on simplicity and performance.
    - zwkrt 4y ago
      Lunch can in fact be free if you skip it. I feel market forces will almost always prefer a centralized (I.e., marginally cheaper) solution so long as it is robust enough. I would have to imagine an entire economic and cultural shift to imagine S3 being usurped by a decentralized solution. Sometimes centralization is a benefit because it gives you someone to invoice/sue if it breaks.
      - Galanwe 4y ago
        I agree with you, and that's what makes me sad. The current internet, with all its shortcomings, has created an impossible standard for alternative solutions that would be more secure / free to reach.
        pclmulqdq 4y ago

Galanwe 4y ago

Good points, unfortunately HN will blindly downvote anything crypto optimistic.

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
HN should just add this comment by default to every crypto discussion. It is parroted practically every time people get offended that others aren't convinced by their arguments.
- Galanwe 4y ago
  > It is parroted practically every time people get offended that others aren't convinced by their arguments. Which side is not listening to other's arguments? I don't see any argument against crypto in general, except "I don't believe" or "I don't think it solves something I know of". These are not arguments, these are also not refutable. As a practitioner of finance for 15 years, from front to back, vanilla to exotic, tech to investment, I've spent hours on HN to explain that yes, there are tremendous advantages to blockchain in finance. Yet by the very definition of 1 user = 1 vote, it just takes a 22yo web developer to think "meh, no, it's just scams". HN is good for a lot of stuff, but when it comes to something that is beyond the understanding of the average developer, there is not point for a few specialists trying to convince a mass of nay sayers.
  - zwkrt 4y ago
    This is so strange. You have been in HN long enough to know that this forum used to be very pro-crypto/coin. After a decade or more of failed promises, failed currencies, scam after scam, and billions of dollars in value squandered, HN is only just in the last year starting to take a more critical stance.
    - unmole 4y ago
      > that this forum used to be very pro-crypto/coin Huh? I've been on HN for a long time and I don't remember it ever being pro-crypto. People got excited about BTC and ETH in the old days but HN was one of the few places on the internet where people were always sceptical of the crypto hype.

p1necone 4y ago

> There are real world use cases for blockchains, including stablecoin, trading, etc. though this has progressed much slower than expected Speculation is not a use case. The normal argument is that trading helps create liquidity, but liquidity for what?

junofan 4y ago
I mean you can do nearly free nearly instant cross-border wires with no bank fuckery. Definitely nice if you have to do this a lot.
- unusualmonkey 4y ago
  You can do this without blockchain. At a fundamental level it's pretty simple: Have account A in currency Y. Have account B in currency X. When account A receives funds, release funds from account B. This is how companies like wise.com work. The complicated part is the regulation and reporting needed for cross-border transactions. To be fair to crypto, it does offer one way of disconnecting the two accounts - rather than having any trust between them, you can simply use a trusted distributed ledger. This in theory creates a marketplace. (Keeping in mind that any trusted system could achieve the same goal, just happens that you can do this with crypto). Of course, it does so by adding cost, complexity, and maybe making your transactions public. The real 'benefit' is that because crypto is new, and wild west, is that there's no guarantee that accounts A and B are complying with regulation and reporting needed for cross-border transactions (or even banking in general). As such on the surface it can seem like this is a cheaper and easier alternative - but only because it's avoiding the problem, not solving it. Given enough time and countries will likely crack down on this.
  - int_19h 4y ago
    The complicated part is the outright legal prohibitions on moving money. Say, if you have family in country X that you need to send money to, and country X that happens to be under sanctions for decades because chickenhawk politicians in country Y need some red meat to throw to their electorate. And sure, the countries are already cracking down on it, just as they've been cracking down on Hawala before. So far, such attempts to regulate seem to have the most effect on miner operations and speculation, not on meaningful movement of money.