3 ms·

Maybe I wasn't clear - my OP argues strictly in alignment with your response here.

by mattwilsonn888 3y ago

jqpabc123 3y ago
So we agree that without crypto, blockchain is a solution searching for economic viability and a reason to exist?
- mattwilsonn888 3y ago
  "So we agree that without wheels, a car is useless?" No, not really. A blockchain without a native currency is imparted no special economic security i.e. insurmountable costs to rewrite data. If you want a system that allows anyone to participate and secure high stakes transactions, you cannot allow cheap revisionism or censorship which is exactly what traditional systems allow (through power or bribes). A blockchain without a native currency is void of any economic security. I'm not sure what you believe the "gotcha" is when your hypothetical removes the most crucial aspect in order to try and prove the tech is useless.
  - Double_a_92 3y ago
    A blockchain doesn't have to allow anyone to participate. Basically replace "blockchain" with "SQL database" everywhere, and if it doesn't make sense then ... well it also doesn't make sense for blockchain.
    - mattwilsonn888 3y ago
      > A blockchain doesn't have to allow anyone to participate. A blockchain with authoritative access has marginal use: it can reduce trust (but not realistically defend against economic attacks) - it certainly pales in comparison to the societal application of a network which is robust while allowing arbitrary participation in consensus. People, skeptics included, get stuck on the word blockchain and build arguments stating that any data structure which is a cryptographic chain of hashes is the true subject of interest. Blockchain doesn't offer the compelling parts of "crypto" anymore than a care without an engine offers the ability to drive. Economic (or game theoretic, if you like) defense against converging power is the primary draw. It is why technologically minded people so often don't truly grok it - because the cryptography is (important) implementation details. It is the incentives which emerges from those schemes that is primarily important.
      - Double_a_92 3y ago
        A blockchain doesn't have to be public at all... It's just a tool that anyone can use internally in their project among trusted peers.
  - jqpabc123 3y ago
    ... in order to try and prove the tech is useless. I don't need to prove anything that the marketplace hasn't already. The burden of proof is on anyone proposing a blockchain solution --- which I assumed is what you were looking to address.
    - mattwilsonn888 3y ago
      The market place has placed 1.2 trillion dollars of investment into distributed ledger technology, and we're in a recession - if that's the metric you want to use. Frankly I find such a retreat in reasoning extremely reductionist and not useful or compelling. One can reason about fundamentals more competently than the average market participant. Isn't that the point of this community? Venture capital adjacent folk who profit off of being more well informed than the market.

Maybe I wasn't clear - my OP argues strictly in alignment with your response here.

jqpabc123 3y ago

So we agree that without crypto, blockchain is a solution searching for economic viability and a reason to exist?

mattwilsonn888 3y ago
"So we agree that without wheels, a car is useless?" No, not really. A blockchain without a native currency is imparted no special economic security i.e. insurmountable costs to rewrite data. If you want a system that allows anyone to participate and secure high stakes transactions, you cannot allow cheap revisionism or censorship which is exactly what traditional systems allow (through power or bribes). A blockchain without a native currency is void of any economic security. I'm not sure what you believe the "gotcha" is when your hypothetical removes the most crucial aspect in order to try and prove the tech is useless.
- Double_a_92 3y ago
  A blockchain doesn't have to allow anyone to participate. Basically replace "blockchain" with "SQL database" everywhere, and if it doesn't make sense then ... well it also doesn't make sense for blockchain.
  - mattwilsonn888 3y ago
    > A blockchain doesn't have to allow anyone to participate. A blockchain with authoritative access has marginal use: it can reduce trust (but not realistically defend against economic attacks) - it certainly pales in comparison to the societal application of a network which is robust while allowing arbitrary participation in consensus. People, skeptics included, get stuck on the word blockchain and build arguments stating that any data structure which is a cryptographic chain of hashes is the true subject of interest. Blockchain doesn't offer the compelling parts of "crypto" anymore than a care without an engine offers the ability to drive. Economic (or game theoretic, if you like) defense against converging power is the primary draw. It is why technologically minded people so often don't truly grok it - because the cryptography is (important) implementation details. It is the incentives which emerges from those schemes that is primarily important.
    - Double_a_92 3y ago
      A blockchain doesn't have to be public at all... It's just a tool that anyone can use internally in their project among trusted peers.
- jqpabc123 3y ago
  ... in order to try and prove the tech is useless. I don't need to prove anything that the marketplace hasn't already. The burden of proof is on anyone proposing a blockchain solution --- which I assumed is what you were looking to address.
  - mattwilsonn888 3y ago
    The market place has placed 1.2 trillion dollars of investment into distributed ledger technology, and we're in a recession - if that's the metric you want to use. Frankly I find such a retreat in reasoning extremely reductionist and not useful or compelling. One can reason about fundamentals more competently than the average market participant. Isn't that the point of this community? Venture capital adjacent folk who profit off of being more well informed than the market.