981–990 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Web2.0 might have had a silly name … > I don’t see that with web3.0. I do.
Care to elaborate?
The strategic quoting was supposed to show that the only thing I disagreed with was that I find the name "Web 3.0" about as silly as its predecessor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something?
Yes, to say that you have changed your mind about something as if that carries any particular weight in favour of that something is "dangerous" to the recipients of your message, as it's an underhanded debating tactic designed to persuade them of something that has no actual persuasive arguments in its favour.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I build dApps and solidity contracts with hundreds of millions of USD in TVL. But that's besides the point. It's not a contest of who's more knowledgeable, I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions
> I'm arguing against ignorance through quick judgements and assumptions Yes, but you're arguing that against someone -- someone whom you haven't shown is making "quick judgements and assumptions". You're just assuming that. That is the problem GP was pointing out: Crypto-"currency" proponents always jump to that conclusion. Stop doing that.
I don't think telling someone to not jump to conclusions is itself jumping to conclusions. Otherwise we'd have infinite loops in every discussion
Earlier quoted context omitted.
my argument isn't that the GP's information is wrong per se, but that gross oversimplification through slapping labels like "scam" and "bullshit" against the merits of a technology is blind, just as blind as people who worship the blockchain. my argument is for us to make our cases in an enlightened and civilised way instead of calling out names
And still, you have utterly failed to tell -- either in an "enlightened and civilised" or in any other way -- why and how this whole "Crypto" fad isn't scam and bullshit. Until somebody does, the null hypothesis remains that it is. (Use some cuter name if that makes you feel better, but it is what it is.)
I have my views on positive use cases for the blockchain and/or cryptocurrencies, and I got that by learning and building stuff with it. On whether the technology is a net good or bad to society, I don't know.
One can refuse to participate in anything without completely dismissing its merit. But that's the polarised world we live in :/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
'Zooming out and seeing the big picture' seems to mean buying into a libertarian vision of the world where the current money system is horribly broken and blockchain technologies are a viable and superior alternative. I profoundly disagree on all points of that analysis.
There are plenty of people on any part of the political spectrum for whom the current money system is horribly broken.
I believe the system where a semi-independent central bank has the ability to regulate the currency of the country is a good thing on the whole. It's the best balance of compromises we have seen actualized.
Having a fixed supply of digital coins seems more like a return to the old days where there was a fixed supply of gold and silver coinage. And that era was called the dark ages. A system with fractional reserve credit is much more conducive to economic growth and prosperity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's muddy waters. I just heard some guy from a public office saying they used DOT for some specific need (related to managing bonds somehow). And it was before last year boom. It's all very fuzzy
> some guy from a public office saying they used DOT for some specific need Department of transport?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You'd use a private, permissioned blockchain over federated SQL databases due to the technical difficulties of synchronizing audit tables across organizational boundaries -- since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database. None of the companies here will fully…
> since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database. And why couldn't a distributed SQL database be append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and implemented so each new entry has a hash of the previous state? (If you own it, just set it up to disallow updates or del…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Still probably is!
People this uninformed are somehow the vocal majority of blockchain talk on HackerNews. What a seriously embarrassing misconception which demonstrates ignorance on a fundamental level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The coin certainly can be verified, otherwise you couldn't move it. A stable coin where you trust whoever is providing the backing for that asset is no different from a crypto currency in that way, the trust model still requires that you trust someone to honor the coin or value it in some way. So it's a bad example. The interesting part about it that you can move coins between people who don't trust one another witho…
>>A stable coin where you trust whoever is providing the backing for that asset is no different from a crypto currency in that way, the trust model still requires that you trust someone to honor the coin or value it in some way. I don't follow. With a cryptocurrency you don't have to trust any one. The cryptocurrency can't be redeemed for anything, and thus there's no one to trust for honoring the claim upon redempti…
Of course you do if the currency has been backed by some other asset. You can't just declare that your crypto currency is a "stablecoin" and therefore it is backed by US dollars. There has to be something actually backing it. And that's what you have to trust.
And if it's not a stable coin then you have to trust that you will be able to sell it or exchange it. If your government bans banks or merchants trading in crypto then you might have a problem.
But I specifically didn't want to talk about crypto currency because as I keep repeating, that is the one place where block chains can make sense (even though you still have the edge problem).
> Yes true. And that applies to any digital property on the blockchain.
No, no it doesn't. Not sure what you're having trouble understanding, but it specifically only applies to property that you can verify remotely without trust. I.e., coins.
> The challenge for digital property that is a claim on a real world asset is being able trust a third party to honor the claim upon redemption of the digital property. Some parties have solved that for claims on national currency, and thus we have a few stablecoins.
It's not solved. You still have the trust problem. If you have to trust the entity backing your stable coins then you don't need distributed trust.
> Whether this model can extend to real estate, automobiles, commodities and other assets/goods remains to be seen.
No they all have the same problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> since an enterprise blockchain is append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and each new entry has a hash of the previous view, it overcomes a lot of data integrity issues inherent to a distributed SQL database. And why couldn't a distributed SQL database be append-only, immutable, time-stamped, and implemented so each new entry has a hash of the previous state? (If you own it, just set it up to disallow updates or del…
It could, and then it'd be a blockchain in SQL, like MSSQL's BLOCKCHAIN table type. Those features are definitional to a blockchain.