Totally off topic but for his bio says for secure messages use Signal/iMessage.
Signal is great but iMessage?
Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
91–100 of 225 posts
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#92Isn't he discussing cryptocurrencies in particular rather than blockchain in general? There are many uses for blockchain other than as a cryptocurrency. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not an expert in blockchain by any means.
>There are many uses for blockchain other than as a cryptocurrency. Name one.
Global computer and storage system
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#93There is some truth in the slides but it's well mixed with falsehoods and misunderstandings. * Distributed consensus schemes are not useful only for monetary applications. When they are used as such, there exist mechanisms to commit to a certain fiat price and minimize market exposure to the point where transactions are almost free, in fiat terms. * The disbursement of tokens and the distributed consensus rewards do…
> smart contracts and distributed algorithms enable control mechanism and hard guarantees that have no old world equivalent, they can eliminate counterparty risks, guarantee solvency and fair arbitration etc. The required nexus between the blockchain and the tangible and legal worlds means every limitation that exists today will exist for a "smart contract". It's the same plumbing with a paint job.
[deleted]
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Kindly elaborate. Which ones? To what extent? What is the state of the art here? This was my only issue with bitcoin when I evaluated it several years ago.
Pretty much all the newer ones, Nano, Iota and Eth probably soon to. There is also a debate to use delegated PoS or a hybrid of PoS and PoW to get both of their upsides with none of tbeir downsides.
Iota is not a blockchain. It's also not a cryptocurrency. It's about 98% scam and 1% insane. and 1% Bosch.
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#95"Every tradeable ICO is really an unregulated security."
I disagree with this claim. It depends on whether the token constitutes an investment contract. If the token has utility, was sold as a utility bearing token (rather than an investment opportunity), and if the project possesses an open codebase which token holders can theoretically modify, then I don't believe said token is an unregulated security.
Yet, the vast majority of tokens do in fact function as unregulated securities, which is why these waters are muddled.
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#96Totally off topic but for his bio says for secure messages use Signal/iMessage. Signal is great but iMessage?
iMessage is more popular. You want people to use Signal, but if they don't want or cannot use that, iMessage is his preferred alternative. For a similar reason, I use Signal and WhatsApp. (All 3 are E2EE.)
Nicholas Weaver covered iMessage's strengths and weaknesses before:
(20150804) iPhones, the FBI, and Going Dark [1]
(20150806) Nicholas Weaver on iPhone Security [2]
(20150908) Apple's iMessage defense against spying has one flaw [3]
(20171211) Is Apple Fully Complying With iMessage and FaceTime-Related Court Orders? [4]
I also remember a technical analysis on iMessage by either Matthew Green or Nicholas Weaver.
[1] https://www.lawfareblog.com/iphones-fbi-and-going-dark
[2] https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/08/nicholas_weav...
[3] https://www.wired.com/2015/09/apple-fighting-privacy-imessag...
[4] https://www.lawfareblog.com/apple-fully-complying-imessage-a...
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
> * Distributed consensus schemes are not useful only for monetary applications. OK, but blockchain is not a distributed consensus protocol. It's a document timestamping protocol.
Can you explain? My understanding is we're all working on the same hard math problem, once a certain number of us have verified the answer (ie distributed consensus) one of us is given a reward to encourage further problem solving.
Nope, any bitcoin client can verify any transaction very easily. (Bootstrapping by verifying every transaction in the blockchain does take a while though.) Proof of work is only to prevent a 51% attack where someone spins up enough bots to hijack "consensus" and rewrite transaction history. That's why the difficulty can be dialed up or down - most of the work in mining is not related to verifying the transactions.
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#98Isn't he discussing cryptocurrencies in particular rather than blockchain in general? There are many uses for blockchain other than as a cryptocurrency. Correct me if I'm wrong - I'm not an expert in blockchain by any means.
This specific presentation seems to work perfectly even if you replace all occurrences of "cryptocurrency" with "blockchain" and vice versa.
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
2B+ people do not have access to banking or trade. They are poor because we do not trade with them. I couldn't pay someone in South Africa rural area for something worth $2 without bitcoin. Many other people are censored. Billions more have their wealth devalued via inflation. Bitcoin is a way for people to be free without any state taking their money (see Greece)
So these people are essentially poor and don't have access to trade and Banking, but they are going to have access to the blockchain, hardware wallets, and the various other technologies they need, and this will all happen before banks or mobile app payment systems are able to capture the market? Call me a skeptic.
It's staggering to think that these bitcoin enthusiasts have never heard of M-Pesa or other similar systems. Note that these systems work with dumbphones, which is useful because (I believe) almost all of the mobile phone penetration in places like Africa are dumbphones, not smartphones.
Re: Why “blockchain” is BS in 4 slides
#100The whole cryptocurrency market is surreal to me for these reasons and many more.
But I did think the same thing about Twitter, especially early on when it was constantly broken. And yet, while it was broken people were still talking about it and it was gaining mommentum.
That's the parallel I see here. Enough of the right people are talking about it that it's going to be a thing for at least the near-term future. The whole eco-system can be flawed, but it has momentum.
And even among those that have been scammed, it's in their best interest to keep pushing the virtues of cryptocurrency as long as they have any left to sell.