If I transfer from my Coinbase account to yours, the transaction is not subject to the vagaries of the blockchain. It’s more or less like transferring from my PayPal account to yours.
Are you suggesting it's sidechain? Or that our funds in Coinbase are pooled? Either way, it completely defeats the purpose of decentralization, consensus, etc. Coinbase, in that case, is exactly like a traditional bank except that you're trading non-money instead of money.
If you are depositing anything in an online Bitcoin account and you’re making transactions that aren’t insanely expensive, they’re either side chain or pooled.
As long as someone continues to pay for the storage of your app, which is not guaranteed.
Presumably the app also has other assets like js and frontend that need to be hosted. These aren't just compiled and stuffed in The Blockchain until the end of time. Only the compiled contract itself. Right?
I don't know, but even if everything is stored on a blockchain, the blockchain itself needs to be stored somewhere, and storing data has a cost. So someone has to pay for that (which typically is the users of the blockchain with their fees).
Unless there is a killer feature it enables, it's an implementation detail and I don't care. And I will gladly compare other solutions against blockchain despite not having the same implementation detail you claim puts it above comparison. And so will everyone else that isn't blinded by fanaticism.
Right, so what's happening right now is much more akin to the early days of the internet than anything else IMO. In the same ways we couldn't have ever predicted Facebook, Google, iPhones, etc, in the 90s it's hard to say exactly what impact crypto/web3 will have on the modern world. There's actually something truly new and tangible that crypto has spurred - the ability to drive consensus in a trustless manner automa…
It is of course possible that web3 is a world-changing idea and most people are unable to envision the amazing and revolutionary impact it will have in the future. But criticism doesn't mean anything on its own. Those examples you listed — iPhone, Google, Facebook, etc — there were countless failures for each of those successes. You're relying on survivorship bias. Just because a new technology faces initial criticism, that doesn't mean it's guaranteed to succeed because some successful products also faced initial criticism.
The technology is interesting, but so far most of the use cases involve some form of illegality. If you want to use, say, NFTs for something legitimate, it turns out they don't really work very well for that. I'd looked at using NFTs for cross-grid ownership transfers of objects in Open Simulator. That's a set of virtual worlds run by several hundred different people and organizations, but using the same software, a…
> The technology is interesting, but so far most of the use cases involve some form of illegality. If you want to use, say, NFTs for something legitimate, it turns out they don't really work very well for that. This sounds like opinion written as fact. NFTs have use cases that don’t just encompass illegal activities and work well. I personally own NFTs that are used for governance in terms of a budding project’s dire…
> Also it’s a little disingenuous to encourage looking at a contextless single data point indicating a collapse of a product without understanding other factors like there being a bear market in place for the overall cryptocurrency landscape
Which is it? Is it a single data point, or is crypto in a bear market?
NFTs are 100% a scam, and the use-cases you've described sounds like financial cosplay.
The comparison between Raspberry Pi and EVM is off by many, many orders of magnitude. What Ethereum marketing likes to call a “global supercomputer” is slower than a 1950s computer built out of vacuum tubes, and running programs is more expensive than it was in 1955. (Programming ergonomics are also nearly punch card level.) There are very few applications you’d actually want to execute on a platform like that. And e…
Your comment is flawed from the start: no one actually working on Ethereum ever claimed the EVM itself would be a 'super computer.' Thats's day 1 shit. If instead of focusing on the flaws and then writing off blockchains, you searched for solutions or for the people more intelligent than yourself working on those solutions, you may have stumbled across ingenious proposals like the TrueBit protocol which can perform e…
> no one actually working on Ethereum ever claimed the EVM itself would be a 'super computer.' Thats's day 1 shit.
Well perhaps you should expand your horizons a bit. If you have a good grasp of the core issues with Ethereum then you should have a good idea of what to look for in newer projects.
Let me ask this then - say a newer crypto project succeeds and works as advertised. What then? What specific future applications make you excited about it, besides trading crypto for crypto? People ask this over and over, and rather than "you could do x, y, and z" what I always seem to hear are vague emotional appeals - "the possibilities are limitless", "we didn't understand the future of the internet / the smartpho…
DAO's for one. The implications are broad enough that you could easily feign ignorance or straw-man what they mean. Unless you think the innovation behind Bitcoin is useless, then its hard not to be excited about how that innovation generalizes which is exactly the vision if not quite the result of smart contracts.
You are implying the false pretense that the person you are replying to is arguing that Web3 technology is being properly valued and therefore should be used right now ! What an easy strawman to knock over - what they are actually saying is that the vision and promise of this emerging technology layer has obvious value compared to today's standard. Man that latter statement is a real thinker in comparison.
Your sarcasm actually doesn't fix anything, but, for all your sarcasm, you apparently didn't read very carefully. I pointed out it appears to not solve any problem that currently exists, yes. But I also qualified it by saying it doesn't solve a problem that people seem likely to have anytime soon, ie the future, either . So the latter statement you try to prop up doesn't change anything - it does not have obvious val…
Yes yes the board that vies for more sovereign web architecture and values user control and consent cannot grasp the vision behind Web3. And you wonder why sarcasm is all the energy you are worth.