Live data from Hacker News

Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

defector.com

231–240 of 411 posts

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> All an NFT is is a token that represents ownership, like if the title to your car or house deed was on a blockchain. No. An NFT is just a few bytes of text pinned to a blockchain. They are essentially useless, and every useful property of an NFT can be achieved using asymmetric encryption or digital signatures, the blockchain component is just wasteful hype.

If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT. The ability to hold and trade the NFT on the public blockchain makes that asset accessible to a large number of autonomous on-chain markets, like dApps which allow a…

> If an external source - say the Twitter account of an artist - can authenticate that the holder of the NFT is who the creator of the art work wants to be recognized as the owner, then social consensus will lead to widespread value assignment to that NFT.

In other words, you don't need the blockchain because the actual value comes from a different system. The only thing it's adding is overhead and unreliability.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can code a non-tradable NFT no problem. WTF does that even mean? Do people remember what a blockchain even is, at this point? A blockchain is a chain of transactions. You take away the transactions, and its not a blockchain anymore. Unless we really stretch the definition of a "transaction" or blockchain...... Cryptocurrency has lost the plot. People are talking about blockchains, that don't have mining, or tra…

So you limit the types of transactions in your blockchain to "this thing has been issued to this person/id/hash/whatever" and do not have any transactions of the type "this thing has changed ownership to a new person/id/hash/whatever" . A bank account that allows deposits but no withdrawals/transfers, its still a ledger, it just limits the operations you are allowed to do (not the operations you could theoretically d…

When a central authority is in charge of adding transactions to the blockchain, ie: DMV issuing licences, what's the advantage of blockchain over a standard database?

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#233
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the trust is distributed. One single person can't cause the entire system to break down or steal all them money. With blockchain coins, the incentives are aligned. The weird thing that happened with BTC that I don't think Satoshi could forsee is that the more valuable it got, the less usable it got. This is one of the unsolved issues: how to create decentralized consensus very very quickly that can't also be…

Do you know of any lines of research that are out to prove mathematically that it is impossible to have these desirable characteristics simultaneously? I.e. any improvement in consensus efficiency necessarily gives up some amount of decentralization, appropriately defined.

translation "I demand this random HN user show me how it is this is done because I am not going to use a search engine to find it out for myself."

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#234
Regarding an interesting counter-example to blockchain hype, check out Omnichains:

https://www.omnichains.com/

They initially argued that they could provide an unrivaled form of transparency because they kept all the data on the blockchain. But now I'm working for a customer of their's, and I realize there is no blockchain. I believe they now run a standard service backed up by a standard SQL database.

But look at their marketing:

"Omnichain has earned the prestigious recognition for its innovative solution that is helping brands and retailers create more transparent, connected supply chains and drive intelligent process automation."

Or check out this blog post:

"Lack of visibility is not a new problem. Supply chains have long dealt with fragmented management systems and data siloes—barriers that limit transparency, efficiency, and collaboration between stakeholders. The pandemic only magnified these challenges.

...Moving forward, end-to-end visibility solutions—made possible by technologies like blockchain—will be instrumental in helping businesses proactively identify risks and pivot accordingly. So going back to suppliers, manufacturers can use blockchain to connect and share data with their suppliers. With accurate, real-time visibility into available resources upstream, they can quickly identify alternate sources if needed, and ultimately prevent costly production delays."

I have the impression this company started off hoping to use the blockchain to create a more transparent supply chain. I also have the impression they have pivoted away from that vision.

And that's fine, of course. I'm not criticizing them. A startup starts with one hypothesis, tests it, and then pivots when that first hypothesis fails. This is good management.

But I think, in a small way, it indicates what is happening with those startups that got started when blockchain hype was at its peak. Two or three years ago you could get money from investors by promising to revolutionize an industry by using the blockchain. And now it's turning out that the blockchain is less useful than was supposed for creating new kinds of transparency.

As it turns out, supply chain transparency is limited by each companies unwillingness to share it weaknesses, it's lack of cash flow, it's lack of inventory, and it's slow shipping times. Blockchain can not fix any of those things.

And as I've said elsewhere, with these industrial applications of blockchain, I've yet to see a service that could not have been done more easily with a standard framework (Ruby On Rails or Django or Symfony or NodeJS) sitting in front of a standard SQL database.

A final point: this is my first time working on a big retail/warehouse project, and I am absolutely shocked at the primitive technology that is currently in use. Most of these companies lack APIs, which, in the year 2021, I find shocking. For our warehouse, for instance, there is no way to do an API call to find how much of a particular item is still in inventory. And this clearly limits how much the blockchain is able to change anything.

And this is especially wild: I've spoken to the good folks at Omnichains, and they tell me that they do not have an API. Rather, they can send us a CSV file at regular times, but that is it. In the year 2021!

Just amazing.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#235

This article conflates NFTs with cryptocurrency, in a way that looks to me to be intentional in order to bolster his argument that crypto is for rich people to conspicuously consume and to pump and dump on the plebs. NFTs aren't money, or currency and just because they can be created on some blockchains doesn't make them so. I also don't see a genuine effort from the author to really understand why proponents think t…

You need to buy crypto“currencies” to get into NFTs as far as I know; there's no conflating.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#236

Keep in mind that Bitcoin is vulnerable to cracking by quantum computers some time in the next couple decades.

This is kind of overstated. From what I remember, it only makes addresses vulnerable after you spend from them, and in all likelihood the network would migrate to a resistant algorithm.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#237
post #228
post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work. When people first started talking about them I thought that was the idea - a kind of people's copyright registry on the blockchain. Which seems like a fairly reasonable idea, as far as it goes. Edit: To be clear, I mean a copyright registry that is used for t…

> An NFT is decent evidence in favour of the keyholder being the creator of a work, if there's no earlier evidence of somebody else being the creator of the work. The second clause shows why the first is not true: the other evidence is what gives you the information you need. In every context where it really matters it comes down to what a court would accept and … uh … I would not want to be the one having to tell a…

I can't say for sure what a judge would make of a cryptographically secure hash of a piece of content that there's no record of prior to the hash's registration on a blockchain. I think if somebody tries to claim authorship of eg. a screenplay I've written, such a hash should be pretty good evidence in my favour.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#238

This article conflates NFTs with cryptocurrency, in a way that looks to me to be intentional in order to bolster his argument that crypto is for rich people to conspicuously consume and to pump and dump on the plebs. NFTs aren't money, or currency and just because they can be created on some blockchains doesn't make them so. I also don't see a genuine effort from the author to really understand why proponents think t…

> Bitcoin is open source, the original founder is nowhere to be found, there were no VCs involved in its creation or in the distribution of the coins and the entire network is run out in the open. The Bitcoin network is a commons.

Hmmm. You've conveniently danced around any suggestion or mention of the fact that the "creator" of bitcoin mined 1.1 million - 1/20th of all bitcoins that will ever exist(!) - coins in private before launching bitcoin publicly and holds them to this day.

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#239
post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beanie Babies also looked stupid. It's just another fad and bubble. https://www.wbur.org/hereandnow/2015/03/02/beanie-baby-bubbl...

At least you may physically own a beanie doll.

Exactly. If you think your beanie baby is still interesting in 2021, you can put it on a shelf. Showing off your NFT quickly devolves to "cool story, bro."

Re: Cryptocurrency is something people tell lies about in hopes of getting richer

#240
post #220
post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that BBS and compuserve/aol were in the 80s. It took 30 years before everyone had a computer in their pocket and Amazon took off. A debit card is similar to crypto. Is a debit card any different than cash for an end user? Did it cause big changes in banking? I can show you my account balance with a debit card. It may convince you I have the assets to buy whatever you are selling. I can bring a debit card to…

Amazon took off well before the smartphone era. Bezos was Time Magazine's Person of the Year in 1999. I don't understand what you mean re: debit cards. Is it that the transaction processing fee is passed on to the customer? That is already well understood. The issue is that crypto is nowhere near to matching VISA/MC's per-transaction cost.

My point was that you need less people for a transaction to happen.

The cost will go down over time.

Post reply on HN