31–40 of 226 posts
What about Wikileaks? They had all their payments shutdown and then they were able to start accepting payments.
The "use case" for Bitcoin was stated up front. It is to allow censorship resistant transactions. And for Wikileaks in 2010, when their financial transactions were being censored, it worked!
The problem that proof-of-work blockchain solves is widely misunderstood. It uses proof-of-work to establish consensus over points in time which are universally unique. Prior to the publication of Satoshi's paper we did not have a solution to this problem and for that reason it is a significant advance in technology. I wouldn't call it crappy, it's actually quite brilliant. For a detailed description see this: https:…
what was the problem that this solved, exactly?
This is also one of the aspects of "the blockchain" that I struggle with. I don't think normal people want this or should be expected to do this effectively. And once you outsource the security (which most everyone will because it's the rational choice, e.g. Coinbase is better at protecting your crypto than you are, John Q Public.) you're no longer in a "trustless" state. The "trustless" pipe-dream (in the consumer use case) all sort of unravels from there for me.
One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunting for arguments why something will never work , is not only terribly boring, but IMO the most counterproductive way to look at anything.
"In the end" isn't necessarily interesting. In the end, we're all dead anyway :)
"Instead of relying on trust or regulation, in the blockchain world, individuals are on-purpose responsible for their own security precautions. And if the software they use is malicious or buggy, they should have read the software more carefully." This is also one of the aspects of "the blockchain" that I struggle with. I don't think normal people want this or should be expected to do this effectively. And once you o…
I actually like the way this author deconstructs what a blockchain technically is and how it’s sold. And I agree on many points. However, this is where they go awry: Instead of relying on trust or regulation, in the blockchain world, individuals are on-purpose responsible for their own security precautions. THIS is the revolution. And the revolution will not be centralized :) Blockchains are just one example of it. K…
True, but his argument is that the actual fix (that would work) is to fix such dysfunctional countries so they are functional, rather than downgrading everywhere to a Somalia level of trust with blockchain as the techno solution.
One thing is sure, if you're hanging on to the past you'll always lose in the end. That's not to say blockchain is the be all and end all, but constantly hunting for arguments why something will never work , is not only terribly boring, but IMO the most counterproductive way to look at anything.
The problem that proof-of-work blockchain solves is widely misunderstood. It uses proof-of-work to establish consensus over points in time which are universally unique. Prior to the publication of Satoshi's paper we did not have a solution to this problem and for that reason it is a significant advance in technology. I wouldn't call it crappy, it's actually quite brilliant. For a detailed description see this: https:…
> Prior to the publication of Satoshi's paper we did not have a solution to this problem what was the problem that this solved, exactly?
No coiners. Its fine, we will listen to them protest for years and years, telling us it cant work, it isn't a real solution, etc, while we invent the future. This internet thing will never take off, you need a box that screeches, connected to your phone all day long! I can't even get faxes while im 'online'. Pointless.
Your attempt to equivocate the internet (and its impact) and blockchain is laughable.