Live data from Hacker News

Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

seldo.com

81–90 of 318 posts

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#81

I've been quietly following the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, although I only own a very small amount. Some thoughts I have: 1. If you study the history of technology, it becomes pretty clear that it often take decades or even centuries to see the full impact of an invention. Declaring the ultimate value of a technology barely a decade after it was invented is just ignorant. It's only been about 30…

Your first comment is a very common crypto talking point that isn't really borne in reality IMHO.

It takes decades to see the impact. It almost never takes a decade to see the use, and that's what people are deriding. Crypto doesn't really solve a problem that needed solving and it is often the wrong solution for many things it's used for. All at a very high cost.

Cryptocurrency hasn't really brought much in the way of new technology to the table.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#82
post #63

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

It helps to think about this more clearly if you forget the NFT bit and think about just doing this with standard tech. What stops developers today from implementing publicly documented formats for in-game elements? What stops other developers from writing code to import these elements from one game to another? All an NFT adds is a verifiable signature and a pubic database. The signature bit seems completely irreleva…

NFTs are always brought up for game items but I don't understand the non-fungible part of it. A game item or cosmetic is the example par-excellence for a thing that anyone can have a copy of - I don't get why there has to be artificial scarcity in that at all.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#83
I've gotten this feeling, ever since about 2008 or so, that the map that is asset prices is slowly, inexorably becoming uncoupled from the territory of the physical world.

This economy-scale decoupling is the dual of each and every one of our very own psychological uncoupling from our own physical worlds, which has occurred because of the computerization of work, socialization, and life itself (the shimmering neuralink dream).

Cryptocurrencies are what happens if you completely decouple the asset price from the physical world. To create the "value" of cryptocurrencies, we purposefully do nothing at all. The asset is valuable only because of the flow of entropy. Not the flow of energy (which generally has some physically useful function). But entropy itself -- a thing that exists only in the "map" of information, not the "territory" of the real world.

Typically, moving entropy around is useful to us, because it actually corresponds to changes in an underlying physical process. Like, your job doing excel spreadsheets for warehouse inventory management is just changing the flow of entropy -- to you, it is decoupled from the physical world. But there is a link to the physical world: when you change a cell in a spreadsheet, so too a physical good moves somewhere else in the warehouse.

With cryptocurrencies, not so. All this entropy is moving for the sake of itself. It's all virtual -- none of it can be coupled with the physical world (by design! if it could be, some physical force could go in and take your crypto-coins).

Now, here's the delusion: unfortunately for us, moving entropy around is actually still coupled with moving energy around. It actually has a tremendous physical effect on the world around us.

Something I've noticed about cryptocurrency people is that they are very, very plugged in. The evangelists never have a physical job; always a computer job, and they are always online, and believe in being online to the greatest extent possible. And I think, actually, there is a very obvious reason for that.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#84

NFTs in the current form might be pretty useless as such (just a proof you "first purchased" a jpeg). But I think in the gaming space this will become huge and actually makes sense - use elements (items, characters, stats,...) and their history in different and independent games if the developer wants to integrate them. No lock-in and portable, not tied to game-specific accounts.

Your proposal doesn't really make sense from a technical or financial perspective.

Technically, most games aren't interchangeable with assets. There's a wide array of asset formats and bespoke optimizations. It's very hard to take something from one game to another unless they share an engine.

The alternative is the second developer would need to make a corresponding asset for every other one. Though they won't get financially rewarded for it and there's no guarantee that the users will buy the future assets from them instead of elsewhere.

I see this suggestion come up a lot in crypto circles and it's almost certainly always from people who have no experience with game or other real time development, trivializing the cost of asset creation.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#85
post #81

I've been quietly following the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, although I only own a very small amount. Some thoughts I have: 1. If you study the history of technology, it becomes pretty clear that it often take decades or even centuries to see the full impact of an invention. Declaring the ultimate value of a technology barely a decade after it was invented is just ignorant. It's only been about 30…

Your first comment is a very common crypto talking point that isn't really borne in reality IMHO. It takes decades to see the impact. It almost never takes a decade to see the use, and that's what people are deriding. Crypto doesn't really solve a problem that needed solving and it is often the wrong solution for many things it's used for. All at a very high cost. Cryptocurrency hasn't really brought much in the way…

> It almost never takes a decade to see the use,

If you study the history of technology, its ultimate impact is never manifest within a decade. It took decades for the Gutenberg Printing Press to spread around Europe and centuries for the consequences to see be seen (Protestant Reformation, newspapers, birth of the modern media, on and on.) This is the case for pretty much every other invention.

> Crypto doesn't really solve a problem that needed solving

Again, this may be because the problem hasn't arisen yet or isn't obvious yet. We have only just begun the era of networked communications.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#86
post #26

The author believes "a Twitter where your popular tweets earn you money" would be a good thing? Twitter is already full of people trying to shout the loudest - how can adding a financial incentive to shout even louder make things better rather than worse?

I am glad we are talking about crypto pro/cons but this article was a huge miss imho.

The arguments against are these beaten dead horses that many within crypto know already and frankly not well versed.

NFTs were an unenforceable joke, integrating the physical world and the digital world doesn't exist (yet?), there are alternatives to the PoW model in use, legal aspects and oracles in the Ethereum network need to be addressed still...what about the DAO reversing the hack which was essentially a loophole in the contract. When loopholes happen in current legal systems it's frowned upon and demands precedent. How about the ridiculous pump and dumps, the toxicity that is speculation amidst many other things.

Governments didn't pop up in one day whole cloth and this will take iterations as well. There is some evolutionary approach to things where what "theoretically works" is tested in reality and deduction is provn out against induction.

There is more transparency in some ways, a lot of confusion in regulation, and misinformation galore. Look no further than the current dealings in Wallstreet to see that existing systems are not currently solved with digital money having been tested for decades now.

I think there are many deserved "good, bad, and ugly" articles to be written but this one was lacking in depth, context, and what I feel is missing most frequently...contrast

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#87

Easily the best take posted here in a while. These are money games. And if you think this will be a minor sector of the economy, look at Wall Street - there is huge demand for these types of games, and that's when only people with $1+ million in net worth can really play. Now anyone can play, at the same time that traditional paths to wealth are stagnating or closing off completely.

How does this enable new people to play? The rich can still gamble the most and come in early to earn the biggest rewards.

The poor still take the highest risk. As the poor buy more into it , the rich get richer as well. Maybe the poor get richer but how much money can they lock away? What stopped them from investing that money in the stock market before crypto was around?

I fail to see how this creates a new economy. It's the same economy just wearing a new skin. The players are the same players. The winners are the same winners with the same luck of making it big or not to inspire others to get into the hype.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#88

I've been quietly following the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, although I only own a very small amount. Some thoughts I have: 1. If you study the history of technology, it becomes pretty clear that it often take decades or even centuries to see the full impact of an invention. Declaring the ultimate value of a technology barely a decade after it was invented is just ignorant. It's only been about 30…

Do you realize how tautological your argument is?

The tech is interesting, but the full impact of the invention isn't yet discovered. Focussing on the scamminess of the loudest players in the current tech environment is unfair to the tech. But you can't critizise the current state and environment of said tech, because it's full potential hasn't been discovered yet.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#89
post #7

> It seems if you want to do crypto things without burning the planet down, you can. Right, but what if you consider it a bad thing to introduce an economic incentive for other people to burn the planet down? This is beyond a matter of personal choice, until and unless we all get our own personal planets.

I agree, but our problem is with proof of work, not crypto. I don't buy/use bitcoin any more because of this. Ethereum is moving (the sooner the better), and the only other PoW crypto I have a bit of is innovating PoW and (hopefully) becomes more environmentally friendly as a result. To be honest, I'm still unclear on if this is even possible, and if energy usage becomes significant relative to what it does, I would…

Yes, PoW is the major problem here.

I just don’t agree that it can be dismissed as easily as the article does there, by saying that you can choose not to use it.

We only have one planet we share and other people’s choices are also important.

Re: Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

#90
post #88

I've been quietly following the development of cryptocurrencies and blockchain, although I only own a very small amount. Some thoughts I have: 1. If you study the history of technology, it becomes pretty clear that it often take decades or even centuries to see the full impact of an invention. Declaring the ultimate value of a technology barely a decade after it was invented is just ignorant. It's only been about 30…

Do you realize how tautological your argument is? The tech is interesting, but the full impact of the invention isn't yet discovered. Focussing on the scamminess of the loudest players in the current tech environment is unfair to the tech. But you can't critizise the current state and environment of said tech, because it's full potential hasn't been discovered yet.

Where did I say you couldn't criticize it? I just said that making final declarations is foolish, and that criticisms of the technology are often just criticisms of people using it.
Post reply on HN