Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Crypto: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

seldo.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 318 posts

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

#101

Post by Hjfrf »

mantenpanther wrote: post #42
andy_andy_ wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

this runs into the boundary issue, though. getting your hat asset you bought in HatWars into your Garden Town save file isn’t trivial. the two games’ developers need to use the same assets or one needs to remake the asset. it’s cool for the player but work and money for the developers that i’m not sure provides them much value

NFTs don't have to be (are not) the asset, just parameters/stats and the graphical representations can look different according to the game.

Even that doesn't necessarily translate. What does +5 attack sword do in farmville?

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

#102

Post by dagmx »

keiferski wrote: post #98
dagmx wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It took years for the printing press to spread around the world in a time when that was difficult for any physical object to spread around the world. It did not take years for it to be seen as incredibly useful and it was clear fairly early what the use for it was. Saying the problem isn't obvious yet is bizarre. The printing press's use case was apparent immediately, even if the extent of its impact wasn't. You're c…

Again, if you had made any declarations on the printing press a decade after it was invented, you'd have missed pretty much its entire impact. There are clear use cases for blockchain which have been laid out ad infinitum by other people. There are also downsides. This makes it pretty much the same as any other technology, e.g. the combustion engine.

What is an appropriate time according to you then?

There are only two periods of time that can be commented on.

From inception to the present. From the present to future predictions.

The former hasn't shown a use that can't be solved better by other methods.

The latter hasn't shown any either.

The printing press on day 1 had a mission statement that had no equal. So did the combustion engine. It did the current thing faster and better.

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

#103

Post by NicoJuicy »

Animats wrote: post #67

'"Tokens align network participants to work together toward a common goal — the growth of the network and the appreciation of the token." That's great if what you're trying to do is create an ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time. What percentage of systems can be modeled that way?' That's the problem. "An ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time". The perpetual motion machine of…

Ubisoft Quarts had 15 sales for 50$, total revenue: 745$ - https://objkt.com/collection/ubisoftquartz

And only 0.665 % earns money on OpenSea. Concentration of it is way less, you can just crawl the collections. 5 collections dominate all the rest and only the first 266 collections earned > 0 eth. The other 40 k. earned 0 eth. It's obviously not a way for an artist to earn any money.

https://pastebin.com/NyLMcs7c

Script to reproduce ( linqpad): http://share.linqpad.net/wkbrut.linq

Beyond the hype are the numbers :)!

Edit: Didn't contain the script.

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

#104

Post by colordrops »

dagmx wrote: post #81
keiferski wrote: post #77

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…

"no use case" and "no new tech" are just vague opinions that are typical anti-crypto talking points. Whether you personally like the use cases or not, obviously they are there as it's been on fire for more than a decade now, and continuing to grow in popularity. And regarding tech, there is no doubt that the advent nakamoto consensus algorithm is an absolutely breakthrough technology that will be seen as a pivotal moment in the history of tech, for better or wrose.

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

#105

Post by iskander »

Animats wrote: post #67

'"Tokens align network participants to work together toward a common goal — the growth of the network and the appreciation of the token." That's great if what you're trying to do is create an ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time. What percentage of systems can be modeled that way?' That's the problem. "An ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time". The perpetual motion machine of…

>I kind of liked the idea of NFTs as part of an asset portability system for virtual worlds. Goldman Sachs even endorsed that. I was thinking of this for items in the US$1 - US$100 range, like game items. The transaction costs would be too high if it took a blockchain transaction to walk through a portal, even for the cheap blockchains.

This is theoretically possible on Zero Knowledge rollup L2s (two strongest contenders are zkSync and StarkNet) if they achieve sufficient scale but definitely wouldn't work on monolithic chains (not even relatively cheap ones).

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

#106

Post by DyslexicAtheist »

donkeyd wrote: post #66
jayd16 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Youtube and Twitch already pay users so what does crypto add?

I believe the idea of Web3/Crypto is that it's decentralized, so there's no Google or Facebook to take a cut or control a narrative.

> I believe the idea of Web3/Crypto is that it's decentralized

Web3 is Centralized: https://blog.wesleyac.com/posts/web3-centralized - discussed here a few days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29766497

Even if it were decentralized, the moment a technology appears to be decentralized, we do everything in our power to add a centralized (management) layer on top (e.g. github). That layer is what the masses will flock to and eat the lunch of the original technology.

If you have a technology that is already centralized which you try to decentralize it will be nothing more than a niche existence (that might not be a bad thing. See centralized Twitter vs decentralized Mastodon as an example of this)

"Distribute", is more practical than "Decentralize" because it lets you articulate the players and don't have to worry about sybils.

The funniest thing right now is the noisy people into NFT "art" who get their work stolen and are appealing to authority in meatspace.

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

#107

Post by rland »

ethbr0 wrote: post #100
rland wrote: post #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 neurali…

The irony is that much of the criticism against the missing physical link / utility of crypto was surely levelled against the idea of money in its earliest days. "Coins? Why would I want those instead of food? I can't eat coins." To which the killer adoption feature was governments saying "Well, you have to pay taxes in coins, so you need some" to bootstrap & put a floor in under the system's value. Crypto doesn't ap…

No, there isn't. Money is useful because it is an abstraction of a physical process somewhere.

Cryptocurrency can never be an abstraction of some physical process.† Therefore, I would argue, it can never be useful to us.

† Well, technically, it actually is an abstraction of a physical process: a heat engine with 0% efficiency.

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

#108

Post by mgaunard »

Animats wrote: post #67

'"Tokens align network participants to work together toward a common goal — the growth of the network and the appreciation of the token." That's great if what you're trying to do is create an ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time. What percentage of systems can be modeled that way?' That's the problem. "An ecosystem of tokens that appreciate in value all the time". The perpetual motion machine of…

Isn't money supposed to depreciate over time rather than appreciate?

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

#109

Post by chana_masala »

danjac wrote: post #69
astoor wrote: 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 just liked your comment. I accept ETH and BTC, thanks.

I just minted your comment as an NFT.

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

#110

Post by colordrops »

dagmx wrote: post #91
keiferski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 real…

It took years for the printing press to spread around the world in a time when that was difficult for any physical object to spread around the world. It did not take years for it to be seen as incredibly useful and it was clear fairly early what the use for it was. Saying the problem isn't obvious yet is bizarre. The printing press's use case was apparent immediately, even if the extent of its impact wasn't. You're c…

There are many people that find cryptocurrency to be incredibly useful.

"The future is already here – it's just not evenly distributed." - William Gibson

Post reply on HN