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

It’s not still the early days of blockchain

blog.mollywhite.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

991–1000 of 1001 posts

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

#991

Post by CRConrad »

nyolfen wrote: post #982
CRConrad wrote: post #930

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

can you point to where in the comment OP indicates that his opinion carries 'danger' for the audience? the comment is literally "i used to think this was irredeemable as well, however my personal opinion has shifted, caveated by the fact that i still agree that there are tons of scams and a crash coming"

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're talking about. For one thing, nobody else has "literally" said that; your comment is the only one Algolia can find with those exact words.

For another, I can't quite see what's not to get; what is it you're not understanding? saalweachter pointed out that "[i]t's amazing to [them] how universal the 'I used to be a non-believer' line is in evangelism" (Further expounded upon in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29948754 ); throwaway98700k simplified to "[i]t’s a dangerous attitude because it has a paternal edge to it"; you asked whether it is dangerous to say that you have changed your mind about something; and I tried to explain that yes, it is, and why. (You might notice that my reply, like your question, was couched in quite general terms: The danger of "conversion" claims in general, without reference to any particular "OP" in this thread.)

But, to explain it again: No, of course OP doesn't indicate that their own opinion carries danger for the audience. (Would you?) That is precisely the danger, that "OP" (assuming you mean poof131) didn't acknowledge that their "conversion" isn't an argument in favour of "conversion", while still mentioning it as if it had something to do with anything (which, as saalweachter explained, tends to carry convincing weight in people's minds even though it logically shouldn't). Sorry, I don't know how to explain it better. Except, perhaps -- did you think this discussion is about whether the "conversion" claim would be "dangerous" to OP himself? That's not it. The danger is that conversion claims tend to persuade people more than they should; the danger of people getting duped into believing things that aren't true just because someone successfully (maybe even unconsciously) uses a rhetorical tactic.

AFAIK, I never claimed OP themselves indicates that their opinion carries danger. That's precisley why I agreed with the posters who did it for them, and spelled it out to you in my GP. Is there anything else in that, that you still don't understand? Besides your misapprehension that I claimed "OP" had said that, I mean (or possibly that the danger mentioned would be to not to "OP" but to the audience)? Which I sincerely hope is (are) thoroughly dispelled by now.

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

#992

Post by CRConrad »

freemanon wrote: post #984
CRConrad wrote: post #928

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

The fallacy of false dichotomies. Things aren't either totally useful or totally a scam. That's what I'm trying to say, we shouldn't jump into quick conclusions one way or the other, especially without trying to really understand first. 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…

Yadda, yadda. Who said I'm 100-0 on the "Scam!" side? I could be 99-1, or maybe even 90-10. Even if I were 60-40, what do you expect -- that I should argue for how it's not a scam?!?

But, hey, you seem to be closer to 100-0 than to 99-1 in favour of "Utopia!".

You would be a lot more persuasive for that side if you didn't natter about meta shit like "fallacies" or "false dichotomies" but in stead presented some actual arguments.

I notice you didn't.

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

#993

Post by CRConrad »

freemanon wrote: post #983
CRConrad wrote: post #927

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

"In other words it's a bullshit scam" isn't jumping to conclusions? 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

> "In other words it's a bullshit scam" isn't jumping to conclusions?

No, it's staying with the null hypothesis until disproven.

> we'd have infinite loops in every discussion

With you, we do.

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

#994

Post by darawk »

CRConrad wrote: post #965
darawk wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm still very opposed to the idea of taking a technology and then searching a problem for it. So, you're opposed to the internet, then?

A resilient decentralised computer network -- first realised as ARPANET, which later grew into the Internet -- was a solution to the (at least perceived) pre-existing problem of a military (nuclear) threat to the USA from the Soviet Union. TL;DR: You're wrong.

Oh, you mean like how cryptocurrency was the solution to the (at least perceived) problem of centralized control over the money supply?

What did you say the difference was again?

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

#995

Post by CRConrad »

darawk wrote: post #994
CRConrad wrote: post #965

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A resilient decentralised computer network -- first realised as ARPANET, which later grew into the Internet -- was a solution to the (at least perceived) pre-existing problem of a military (nuclear) threat to the USA from the Soviet Union. TL;DR: You're wrong.

Oh, you mean like how cryptocurrency was the solution to the (at least perceived) problem of centralized control over the money supply? What did you say the difference was again?

The difference was that the nuclear-war threat was somewhere between at least plausible and imminent, whereas the "problem" of centralized control over the money supply never actually existed; it's a delusion based on a fundamental misapprehension of what money is.

HTH!

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

#996

Post by CryptoPunk »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #989
CryptoPunk wrote: post #980

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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…

> 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 redemption. 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 i…

>>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.

You're misunderstanding me. By cryptocurrency, I am referring to a natively digital asset, with nothing from the real world, e.g. US dollars, backing it. ETH would be an example of a cryptocurrency.

I am distinguishing cryptocurrencies from stablecoins, which do have something from the real world backing them.

That's why I wrote:

"The cryptocurrency can't be redeemed for anything, and thus there's no one to trust for honoring the claim upon redemption."

With stablecoins, you need to trust a third party - the issuer of the stablecoin - to provide USD in the event that the stablecoin is redeemed.

With a cryptocurrency, there is no third party you need to trust to honor any pledges.

Yes, governments can ban a cryptocurrency, but that is NOT a case of a trusted third party violating its commitment to you, as in the case of a stablecoin issuer in default, so it's an entirely different category of dependence on trust in a third party.

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

#997

Post by edem »

300bps wrote: post #589
edem wrote: post #571

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're missing the point. The goal when you use blockchain is not to more easily serve. It is all the things that don't matter to you until it is too late, like censorship resistance.

There is no censorship resistance with blockchain. You’re still beholden to the whims of centralized developers and miners. You’re still beholden to a court order. If the government wants to confiscate your crypto assets they can simply put you in jail until you provide the location of your private key. If the government can penetrate offshore bank accounts they’ll have no trouble with your crypto wallet. I’m happily…

You are so wrong on so many levels that I won't even bother to address your false points.

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

#998

Post by CRConrad »

CRConrad wrote: post #977
miracle2k wrote: post #581

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know, but I don't see how that is an interesting question. As crypto critics rightly point out, the vast amounts of energy that the financial system consumes provides a huge amount of different services; from bank branches to regularity compliance. From a literal technical point of view, storing a ledger on 10k computers consumes more energy than than storing it one one. But maybe the backup and operational i…

> Meanwhile, a single branch of McDonalds consumes many multiples more energy than any PoS blockchain. Oh yes? So all McDonald's branches together consume orders of magnitude more energy than the whole world produces?

Ah, duh, PoS. But but, what a lovely acronym that too.

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

#999

Post by kikimora »

CRConrad wrote: post #955
kikimora wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vote with your (imaginary) citizen token to appoint a notary. And have a right to vote against it at any time. With blockchain you can elect new notaries every day if this is how you want to manage it.

How many votes does it take to appoint a notary? If one or a few, I can set up a corrupt notary (or several) to notarize my fake deal with you. If many, I can't get rid of the corrupt notary (or notaries) you have set up to notarize your fake deal with me. Is either of these particularly great?

I don't see your point. You attack an outline of a system. Fun system will be complex and I won't describe it here in full. In the same way as today notary appointment procedure is complex and involve multiple organisations.

I claim that blockchain solves Byzantine generals problem (BGP) in a scalable way and no other such solution exists. I also claim that this very problem (BGP) is being solved right now in multiple instances by using a trusted middleman, usually appointed, controlled and often funded by the government. I also claim that maintaining trust is not free and often paid from tax money (as in DVLA example). And my last claim that partial or full automation of a middleman function with blockchain is cheaper than running it traditional way (considering all costs involved).

Potentially unexpected corollary from the first and second claims - a software without blockchain cannot automate a trusted middleman function because of trust issues.

Feel free to attack any of the claims.

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

#1000

Post by freemanon »

CRConrad wrote: post #992
freemanon wrote: post #984

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fallacy of false dichotomies. Things aren't either totally useful or totally a scam. That's what I'm trying to say, we shouldn't jump into quick conclusions one way or the other, especially without trying to really understand first. 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…

Yadda, yadda. Who said I'm 100-0 on the "Scam!" side? I could be 99-1, or maybe even 90-10. Even if I were 60-40, what do you expect -- that I should argue for how it's not a scam?!? But, hey, you seem to be closer to 100-0 than to 99-1 in favour of "Utopia!". You would be a lot more persuasive for that side if you didn't natter about meta shit like "fallacies" or "false dichotomies" but in stead presented some actua…

I'm not trying to convince anyone that crypto is 100% the future. I'm trying to convince people that it's not a total scam.

Between black and white there's gray.

You keep digging into that false dichotomy

Post reply on HN