5 ms·

The Web hit the scene in 1991. By 2003 how we shopped, worked, consumed media, communicated with friends and family, and interacted with information was in the

The Web hit the scene in 1991. By 2003 how we shopped, worked, consumed media, communicated with friends and family, and interacted with information was in the process of changing radically. A million "little ambitions" to replace catalogue shopping and how hotel reservations were made were transforming how the world worked. Bitcoin hit the scene in 2011. By 2023 crypto's mostly a failed get-rich-quick scheme with a couple actual possibly legitimate uses that you can see if you squint just right. So not only did crypto have much smaller goals than the Dot-Com era, but it failed pretty hard at those goals. And the deep dark secret at the heart of crypto is that — apart from the get-rich-quick stuff — it's neither particularly interesting nor useful. And it takes a lot of set dressing and hand-waving to make it seem like such.

bombcar 3y ago
The most "legitimate" use for bitcoin and its friends is transferring funds electronically with people that others don't want you transferring funds with (e.g, avoiding payment processors, laws, etc). However, it remains to be seen if cryptocurrency could survive doing only that (e.g., without speculators) - because if there's no speculation how do you unload the currency? Only to others wishing to do the same. It's possible, but will it work out?
- eli 3y ago
  "avoiding laws" is not a "legitimate" use
  - snapcaster 3y ago
    I think you're using legitimate to mean "legal and most reasonable people would be okay with it" whereas the post you're responding to meant "legitimate" to mean an actual real technological advancement that wasn't doable with previous technologies
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - bmoxb 3y ago
      > wasn't doable with previous technologies But anonymous London shell companies have been available for years!
      - bombcar 3y ago
        Setting up an entire shell company to buy a dime bag is not an efficient use of money. Of course, apparently fees on bitcoin are so high that buying a dime bag there isn't useful, either.
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Exactly. Legitimate can mean "conforming to the laws" in which case law avoidance can't (usually) be legitimate, but I was taking the secondary meaning of "able to be defended with logic or justification" e.g., it allows something that couldn't otherwise be done (currently). A government that fully supported an actual digital cash that was untraceable (perhaps this is best done with crypto, but you can do it without a blockchain) would serve the same purpose.
- ljf 3y ago
  All the while remembering that all transactions in bitcoin have a permanent ledger - so many friends seemed to think that bitcoin is somehow secret and anonymous - there are ways to make it more so, but by default it is much less anonymous than cold hard cash.
- Animats 3y ago
  > The most "legitimate" use for bitcoin and its friends is transferring funds electronically with people that others don't want you transferring funds with (e.g, avoiding payment processors, laws, etc). Yes. I way underestimated the size of the money-laundering industry.
d3vmax 3y ago
2009, not even 2011. Agree with your statement.
ilamont 3y ago
> And the deep dark secret at the heart of crypto is that — apart from the get-rich-quick stuff — it's neither particularly interesting nor useful. And it takes a lot of set dressing and hand-waving to make it seem like such. Yep. For an example this week, see "Web3 Can Help Marginalized Communities Share Their Stories" (https://decrypt.co/142763/web3-can-help-marginalized-communities-share-their-stories-jordan-bayne https://decrypt.co/142763/web3-can-help-marginalized-communi...) “You can truly own your IP through the whole thing,” Bayne said, highlighting the advantages that Web3 brings to filmmaking. “Your community can be involved through every step, and you don't necessarily need the studios.”
- dylan604 3y ago
  >“You can truly own your IP through the whole thing,” Bayne said, highlighting the advantages that Web3 brings to filmmaking. “Your community can be involved through every step, and you don't necessarily need the studios.” i get you have to have types with very active imaginations to evangelize and get a new thing created, but sometimes, that imagination is just so fanciful that it has the same odds as a snow ball in certain locations. it also makes the speaker just sound completely out of touch and delusional. that comment makes me think someone is quite enamored with the sound of their own voice
htormey 3y ago
I don’t think comparing the timelines of vastly different technologies like this is helpful. Prior to the web, in the 1960s/1970s we had packet-switching networks, such as ARPANET which were the basis of modern computer networking. The original ARPANET (precursor to the internet)was just used to connect computers at research institutions. I.e it wasn’t used by that many people relatively speaking. It took another 20 years for the web to come along and more for it gain widespread adoption. Is Bitcoin, a very low level protocol, more analogous to ARPANET or the web? Even if you dislike crypto, is this comparison really helpful? All technology is built on the shoulders of previous giants. Building a secure, scalable, sufficiently decentralized distributed computer system is hard. I.e it’s going to take a long ass time. Hence I’m not surprised at how far we have come since BTC was released.
- topranks 3y ago
  Email was a massive hit from day 1 on the Arpanet. Whereas crypto still struggles to do anything novel or get popular with anyone outside of speculation.
- topranks 3y ago
  > Building a secure, scalable, sufficiently decentralized distributed computer system is hard. Yep. This blockchain/PoW/PoS way they’ve come up with to do it, with a built in cryptocurrency, doesn’t really cut it. The trade offs to be “sufficiently decentralized” make it slow, expensive and unscalable. Making it effectively useless for real-world applications. The whole of Ethereum has as much power as a raspberry pi.
- IntelMiner 3y ago
  So if Bitcoin was the "ARPANET" what's that make NFT's? The most utterly useless offshoot of "blockchain" I've seen yet
- notahacker 3y ago
  Whilst it's certainly a valid point that different technologies don't have exactly the same adoption curves, we're not talking about decades of behind closed doors innovation to make microcomputers people would want to use packet switching technology to share stuff on, we're talking about adoption curve of the most-hyped thing since the "information superhighway" of the 1990s, something which involves stadium sponsorship deals, Sand Hill Road and more electricity consumption than most countries. And generally the "it's like the early days of the web" stuff is coming from pro-crypto people, usually those who are pretty keen on stressing that their portfolio is not an experiment as doomed to obsolescence as a 1960s comms network (and that POS and faster transaction throughput on different blockchains isn't "better"). The issues the present crypto industry suffer from for the most part aren't scaling or lack of technology, they're philosophical.
microtherion 3y ago
> Bitcoin hit the scene in 2011. By 2023 crypto's mostly a failed get-rich-quick scheme with a couple actual possibly legitimate uses that you can see if you squint just right. You forgot that already by 2022, you were able to use multiple slurp juices on a single ape!

bombcar 3y ago

The most "legitimate" use for bitcoin and its friends is transferring funds electronically with people that others don't want you transferring funds with (e.g, avoiding payment processors, laws, etc). However, it remains to be seen if cryptocurrency could survive doing only that (e.g., without speculators) - because if there's no speculation how do you unload the currency? Only to others wishing to do the same. It's possible, but will it work out?

eli 3y ago
"avoiding laws" is not a "legitimate" use
- snapcaster 3y ago
  I think you're using legitimate to mean "legal and most reasonable people would be okay with it" whereas the post you're responding to meant "legitimate" to mean an actual real technological advancement that wasn't doable with previous technologies
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - bmoxb 3y ago
    > wasn't doable with previous technologies But anonymous London shell companies have been available for years!
    - bombcar 3y ago
      Setting up an entire shell company to buy a dime bag is not an efficient use of money. Of course, apparently fees on bitcoin are so high that buying a dime bag there isn't useful, either.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Exactly. Legitimate can mean "conforming to the laws" in which case law avoidance can't (usually) be legitimate, but I was taking the secondary meaning of "able to be defended with logic or justification" e.g., it allows something that couldn't otherwise be done (currently). A government that fully supported an actual digital cash that was untraceable (perhaps this is best done with crypto, but you can do it without a blockchain) would serve the same purpose.
ljf 3y ago
All the while remembering that all transactions in bitcoin have a permanent ledger - so many friends seemed to think that bitcoin is somehow secret and anonymous - there are ways to make it more so, but by default it is much less anonymous than cold hard cash.
Animats 3y ago
> The most "legitimate" use for bitcoin and its friends is transferring funds electronically with people that others don't want you transferring funds with (e.g, avoiding payment processors, laws, etc). Yes. I way underestimated the size of the money-laundering industry.

d3vmax 3y ago

2009, not even 2011. Agree with your statement.

ilamont 3y ago

> And the deep dark secret at the heart of crypto is that — apart from the get-rich-quick stuff — it's neither particularly interesting nor useful. And it takes a lot of set dressing and hand-waving to make it seem like such. Yep. For an example this week, see "Web3 Can Help Marginalized Communities Share Their Stories" (https://decrypt.co/142763/web3-can-help-marginalized-communities-share-their-stories-jordan-bayne https://decrypt.co/142763/web3-can-help-marginalized-communi...) “You can truly own your IP through the whole thing,” Bayne said, highlighting the advantages that Web3 brings to filmmaking. “Your community can be involved through every step, and you don't necessarily need the studios.”

dylan604 3y ago
>“You can truly own your IP through the whole thing,” Bayne said, highlighting the advantages that Web3 brings to filmmaking. “Your community can be involved through every step, and you don't necessarily need the studios.” i get you have to have types with very active imaginations to evangelize and get a new thing created, but sometimes, that imagination is just so fanciful that it has the same odds as a snow ball in certain locations. it also makes the speaker just sound completely out of touch and delusional. that comment makes me think someone is quite enamored with the sound of their own voice

htormey 3y ago

I don’t think comparing the timelines of vastly different technologies like this is helpful. Prior to the web, in the 1960s/1970s we had packet-switching networks, such as ARPANET which were the basis of modern computer networking. The original ARPANET (precursor to the internet)was just used to connect computers at research institutions. I.e it wasn’t used by that many people relatively speaking. It took another 20 years for the web to come along and more for it gain widespread adoption. Is Bitcoin, a very low level protocol, more analogous to ARPANET or the web? Even if you dislike crypto, is this comparison really helpful? All technology is built on the shoulders of previous giants. Building a secure, scalable, sufficiently decentralized distributed computer system is hard. I.e it’s going to take a long ass time. Hence I’m not surprised at how far we have come since BTC was released.

topranks 3y ago
Email was a massive hit from day 1 on the Arpanet. Whereas crypto still struggles to do anything novel or get popular with anyone outside of speculation.
topranks 3y ago
> Building a secure, scalable, sufficiently decentralized distributed computer system is hard. Yep. This blockchain/PoW/PoS way they’ve come up with to do it, with a built in cryptocurrency, doesn’t really cut it. The trade offs to be “sufficiently decentralized” make it slow, expensive and unscalable. Making it effectively useless for real-world applications. The whole of Ethereum has as much power as a raspberry pi.
IntelMiner 3y ago
So if Bitcoin was the "ARPANET" what's that make NFT's? The most utterly useless offshoot of "blockchain" I've seen yet
notahacker 3y ago
Whilst it's certainly a valid point that different technologies don't have exactly the same adoption curves, we're not talking about decades of behind closed doors innovation to make microcomputers people would want to use packet switching technology to share stuff on, we're talking about adoption curve of the most-hyped thing since the "information superhighway" of the 1990s, something which involves stadium sponsorship deals, Sand Hill Road and more electricity consumption than most countries. And generally the "it's like the early days of the web" stuff is coming from pro-crypto people, usually those who are pretty keen on stressing that their portfolio is not an experiment as doomed to obsolescence as a 1960s comms network (and that POS and faster transaction throughput on different blockchains isn't "better"). The issues the present crypto industry suffer from for the most part aren't scaling or lack of technology, they're philosophical.

microtherion 3y ago

> Bitcoin hit the scene in 2011. By 2023 crypto's mostly a failed get-rich-quick scheme with a couple actual possibly legitimate uses that you can see if you squint just right. You forgot that already by 2022, you were able to use multiple slurp juices on a single ape!