Live data from Hacker News

It’s not still the early days of blockchain

blog.mollywhite.net

491–500 of 1001 posts

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Physically possessing the deed to a house doesn't make you its owner either.

The law makes me the owner… good we have something to trust that my house is my house… the law and not crypto ;)

Well the law and the fact that (eventually) someone will come and physically remove whoever claims to own your house.

A Blockchain without the ability to initiate (and complete) such a process is worthless for questions of real world ownership.

Of course a Blockchain could be empowered to do that....through a law.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#492
post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the transaction I described (which was personal) involved a bank transfer between two EU states, and it's simply not true. It's not instantly, doesn't work 24/7 (a transaction made on Friday arrived on Tuesday), and you have to find plenty of tricks to avoid high fees and super bad exchange rates (EU has more than one currency, you know).

What's wrong with paypal?

You can find lot of stories of them blocking your account without explanation and taking the money.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#493

I never understand critiques like these. > "somehow no one appears to have managed to find a positive use for blockchains that wouldn’t be better served by blockchainless technologies" There is now a sovereign nation state that accepted Bitcoin as a currency, and, mark my words, no doubt more will follow this 2022. Replacing central banks, and by extension, their grasp on the limitless money printing, is the whole re…

I mean a significant portion of the world's money is created by fractional reserve banking.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#494
post #427
post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Couldn’t you say the same thing about the deed for a house?

Deeds aren't a thing anymore in many countries. In the UK ownership is determined by a centralised land registry, and it must be registered if ownership is to change hands.

Exactly, and while the government database "land registry" could, of course, be replaced with a government "HouseChain" it wouldn't actually solve any Problem but would introduce a ton of new ones.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#495
post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The math for Helium just does not make any sense. Looking at forum threads every gateway makes about $50 in rewards / month. That's $294,000,000 per year in rewards paid out to gateway owners. Sending one packet costs $.00001 (100K packets for $1 according to their website). So we need to see 29,400,000,000,000 packets yearly on the Helium network for data fees to cover the gateway rewards. Looking at data from The T…

Ok, I will bite :) The gateway rewards are becoming less and less every month because more gateways join the network. So in a certain way that feels like a pyramid scheme because the people that joined earlier have an advantage (they also took the most risk by backing this project in a early state). It is quite normal to reward the first movers to your platform (PayPal even gave away free money to grow their user bas…

> It is quite normal to reward the first movers to your platform (PayPal even gave away free money to grow their user base)

The cognitive dissonance here is astounding. Surely you can see how the analogy isn't even remotely 1-1.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well then what's the point of this discussion? The thread is "how has it advanced? How long can you call it early days?" If you just stop reading rebuttals as soon as they're mentioned you're better off talking to a wall, and you'd waste less people's time that way too.

Because technical minutiae are completely irrelevant if they don't eventually convert into useful features for products with at least some level of mass-market appeal. I have yet to see a single enticing idea for blockchain/web3/whatever for a consumer or business not related to finance. If that requires an ever-increasing number of technical challenges to be solved for that to happen, then we're just looking at vapo…

> Because technical minutiae are completely irrelevant if they don't eventually convert into useful features for products with at least some level of mass-market appeal.

Why?

You might care about building businesses, mass-market appeal, blah blah, but many (most?) technologies were created because people thought they were cool or interesting or just because they could. Nobody knew what LASERs were for when they invented them.

To me the point of tech is to invent stuff and see what people do with it, not to make money or feed the economy or whatever, that’s a byproduct. Which coin is worth more money or what will gain mass market adoption is the least exciting part of the whole thing to me. We started with bitcoin having BFT consensus and proof of work to create decentralised, permissionless value (volatile or not!) but we now have multiple chains that can execute arbitrary code, sharding, performance improvements, lightweight chains, various types of proof of stake, token standards, automated market makers, DeFI, NFTs, DAOs, data availability proofs, IPFS, etc. etc.… that’s incredibly exciting! And if you read the actual academic and published research and see the advances being made, it’s even more incredible and wide ranging, and progress is very rapid.

Of course it’d be nice if _some_ of it changed the world (and maybe it already has), but there’s plenty of time for that and it may only be 1% of the interesting new tech that turns out to do so. So what? It’s incredibly cool just to learn and understand it all and think about what might be. (And sure, buy tokens or whatever if you like them or just fancy a gamble. Do your research and don’t spend what you can’t afford to lose.)

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#497
I've been against the whole blockchain space for some time but I only just realised the one big positive to come from it - a new market.

I think that's why it's become so popular, you can actually invest in ideas just as they're being born now. The stock market is a marvel but the barrier to entry for companies is insane. It's also why there's so much money flowing through VC channels these days.

I'm just hoping the resolution to these issues that sticks, a proper market for investing in early stage startups, is created outside of the blockchain.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#498
post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tipping site owners, BAT token. Incentivizing IPFS content pinning, Filecoin. Allowing censorship-resistant / chargeback free donations, most coins. Enabling private transactions, Monero. Most "dapps" empower decentralization, distributed exchanges, trading, DNS, ownership contracts (DOAs), etc. NFT's for art as silly as it is, more importantly for Handshake domain names and other cases where ownership proof comes in…

A cool example of NFT innovation is programmable royalty fees. Those fees can be directed back to the creator, the community, a DAO treasury. Configurations are infinite.

That's not example of something NFTs can do, is it? Royalty fees are not programmable. How does the NFT know whether someone has to pay royalties? And how on earth is an NFT going to make people pay royalties? An NFT can't use coercive force.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#499

Kelsey Hightower said it best: https://twitter.com/kelseyhightower/status/14778718907230781... "If something is too early to criticize it's also too early to evangelize."

Any sane web3 proponent would agree with this statement. Only the scammers wouldn't.

Sane people interested in web3 don't evangelize and are totally aware of and agree with most of the criticisms. If you criticized Ethereum as being expensive and inefficient, you'd get head nods from people that understand the space and pointed to projects that are trying to fix those issues.

Re: It’s not still the early days of blockchain

#500

I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. Why? Back in 2017 during the first hype cycle, blockchain companies raised hundreds of millions with ICOs. I became very interested in the technology too, and some friends still work in this space. 4 years later in the web3 era, there is not a single product aside from trading/finance that got traction. Use cases like stori…

I've been documenting this with specific companies. A recent one that I worked with was Omnichains:

https://www.omnichains.com

"Omnichain CEO Pratik Soni speaks to Inbound Logistics about the growing number of blockchain use cases in the supply chain, including in reverse logistics, product authentication and sustainability."

Apparently this company started with the idea that they would use the blockchain to make supply chains more transparent. And they raised money from investors with that goal in mind. But they have since retreated from that goal.

I worked with a retailer that worked with Omnichains. None of Omnichains tools had anything to do with the blockchain. Certainly, we were never given access to a blockchain, nor was it mentioned after we had signed the contract. Instead, we were granted limited access to an API that I believe was run with Ruby on Rails and MySQL. So at a certain point this company retreated to traditional technologies, rather than trying to use the blockchain.

This is one example. At some point I hope to write up some of the other examples that I've seen.

I do not believe anyone will ever find a legal use for blockchains that cannot be more easily served with traditional technologies.

Post reply on HN