31–40 of 704 posts
"Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime." So you're saying there IS a use case :)
And that use case is HUGE. Cryptos are really enabling unprecedented efficiency in a wide variety of crime
> Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime. After all as we all know: If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. And look at how inefficient all these permissionless, trustless protocols are! What a waste! Let's just all trust a central authority and think of the savings and the children.
This is why I always have thought that election voting would be a perfect use case for a blockchain. Imagine a way that you could look up the blockchain with your key (SSN?) that is somehow one-way-hashed to show you the result of your vote. The value param would be plain-text. Someone else wouldn't be able to see your vote without your key, but you could confirm yours was recorded properly. Anyone could tally the va…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the author's undisclosed competing product Which is: http://adjoint.io "Adjoint digitises cash and settlement processes for multinational corporates."
Interesting! What advantage does Adjoint have over all the cryptocurrencies in existence can it handle payments without your bank declining your payment or chargebacks?
We get it, Steve. You don't like crypto. And it upsets you that other people like things you don't like, so you feel compelled to write the same useless whine over and over to cope. Get a life
This entire post seems to avoid or lack the understanding of the basic reasons blockchain were created; that is, to offer a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant network. This was Satoshi's vision, and those values are a blockchain's express priority over scale and efficiency. Centralization is great for speed and efficiency, not so great for protection against authoritarian actors (governments or centr…
This entire post seems to avoid or lack the understanding of the basic reasons blockchain were created; that is, to offer a decentralized, permissionless, censorship-resistant network. This was Satoshi's vision, and those values are a blockchain's express priority over scale and efficiency. Centralization is great for speed and efficiency, not so great for protection against authoritarian actors (governments or centr…
We have one already: cash. As for protection against authoritarian actors. If your state has already gone full panopticon, crypto won't save you, indeed the state will mandate exclusive use of their chosen crypto, gaining even more visibility into your life. If your state has not yet done so, you should fight to preserve liberty and the rule of law. If your country turns into a full-out surveillance state, you are no…
Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. *y*a*w*n*. There is immediate and obvious utility in being able to send value instantly with no fees, with no dependence on a centralized authority. Nano just got its own currency ticker - XNO - and avoids every fault this author finds in the rest of the field. Mr. Diehl went far enough to pick out some flaws, and then generalized th…
> Another rant about crypto which ignores Nano, which has been around for 6 years now. And also something like Stellar or Hedera which isn't mineable at all and are used for CBDCs.
I get that this is all 'new' and confusing, but the know-it-all condescension really rubs me the wrong way - do they clone these people or what? Where do they all come from?
If everybody in the US had access to bank accounts with easy electronic transfers within 5 seconds for no charge, no chargebacks and so on, as people are used to in the EU, would people still be excited about Bitcoin?
Author's not wrong. I've seen some seriously cringe-inducing "talks" about what blockchain is and is not, and what it can or cannot unlock for you. I also find NFTs to be just...just...confusing. But mostly I don't care. Do whatever you like as long as you're not hurting anyone. On average people are getting misinformed about some technologies, at worst willingly grifted. But I've seen worse technology trends come (a…
> Any application that could be done on a blockchain could be better done on a centralized database. Except crime. After all as we all know: If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear. And look at how inefficient all these permissionless, trustless protocols are! What a waste! Let's just all trust a central authority and think of the savings and the children.
Yeah, this is what I don't understand from the naysayers. Anyone who says blockchain-driven assets don't have intrinsic value seems to ignore the value of trust - the ability to trust that the ledger is accurate seems extremely valuable. The author of the article skips over the question entirely, maybe he's addressed it elsewhere, but if the crypto skeptics continue to ignore one of its primary value propositions, I…