Blockchain: a replicating dataset that spreads like a virus and grows in size exponentially using energy to sustain itself.
Sounds a little concerning.
Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
271–280 of 393 posts
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
The word immutable has a meaning. Blockchain does not fit that meaning. Immutable doesn’t mean, “as long as 51% of miners want it to not change”. Immutable doesn’t mean, “doesn’t change unless we get hacked and then we’ll change it”. I could give more examples. Blockchains are not immutable.
The statistical likelihood of a 51% attack happening on the blockchain seems statistically way less likely than a hack targeting our existing financial system. I mean, it's pretty easy why blockchains are considered immutable, you can even code one from scratch in Python in less than 200 lines of code. To control 51% of all those hashing power, an entity would need to power computers that works as much as that, along…
Let's say the world's banking is running on blockchain. The US Congress is basically a veto on world banking, and I don't see how blockchain technologies can change any of that. The US Congress can pass a law saying any US bank and anyone transacting with them must use a specific version of the blockchain code, decided by the Department of Commerce.
If it's illegal to transact with the US under a previous version of this hypothetical blockchain banking technology, that's your 51% right there.
How could blockchain allow legal banking institutions to refuse to follow the law?
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
The statistical likelihood of a 51% attack happening on the blockchain seems statistically way less likely than a hack targeting our existing financial system. I mean, it's pretty easy why blockchains are considered immutable, you can even code one from scratch in Python in less than 200 lines of code. To control 51% of all those hashing power, an entity would need to power computers that works as much as that, along…
The OP's point was that 51% of miners could agree to a change, and in a system where there are very large players that might not involve that many people.
And it already happened a bunch of times. Bitcoin has been forked a bunch of times, and one could argue the fork that gave birth to Bitcoin Cash was a successful 51% attack on Bitcoin itself.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Not investments. The idea that there's any viable technical reasoning behind TSLA trading as high as it is, or behind what happened with GME and AMC last year is simply fanciful. It's like you've never seen an IPO pump and dump. It's literally the exact same market behavior you saw with ICOs; side-note: it's even worsened now with the advent of SPACs. Yeah, you can argue until the cows come home that "equities are…
Again you're conflating a bunch of unrelated concepts. Equities may trade above a fair valuation - individually, or as a group. That doesn't mean they're not as a group positive-sum instruments. You may lose money on a positive-sum instrument. They're also not money, and never claimed to be. You're forcing a narrative around short timeframes. Equity markets are tied to the performance of the business in the full cour…
> Equity markets are tied to the performance of the business in the full course of time which is tied to labor.
They're not though, and they haven't been for centuries. I gave you 3 examples off the top of my head. Markets are tied to sentiment; let me refer you to the Keynesian beauty contest[1]. This is very basic economic theory.
> Crypto like futures and options are zero-sum or negative-sum instruments if you include the rake. Every dollar in appreciation comes from a new investor. Every, single, one. That's the difference.
There is no "rake" in crypto, so I'm not even sure what you mean by that. Second, every dollar in appreciation on a decentralized exchange (say, SushiSwap) is a result of the automated market maker's supply and demand response. This is functionally exactly the same as what happens with order books (like on the stock market) but it just happens to use liquidity pools to facilitate this (because volume is much lower). For every seller, there's a buyer, and for every buyer, there's a seller: that's how markets work. Third, crypto is actually not at all like options because whereas option contracts can expire worthless (e.g. they run out of time and can no longer be exercised), if you buy some poopcoin, even if it tanks, you'll still own said coin (kind of like a penny stock).
> It's just trading bags of air back and forth.
This might be true, but people trade all kinds of things I personally find dumb (Pokémon cards, rare sneakers, etc.). Looks like a lot of people see value in cryptocurrency, who am I to judge.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
BitCoin is 13 years old. The blockchain is not a new technology, and it is not extremely early days. We have over a decade of people trying to use blockchain and cryptocurrencies to solve real problems - and not just from startups, but also from large, international tech companies with research divisions. They have tried to use blockchain to solve real problems, and they have failed.
The transistor is 13 years old. The transistor is not a new technology...
The transistor was invented in 1947. By 1960, 13 years later, transistors had replaced vacuum tubes as the dominant technology for electronics.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#276Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Crypto so far is largely a vast space with little intrinsic value. So was pokemon. By my definition that's a crap game even without crypto. But millions of people have fun playing it and its a big part of their lives, so who am I to judge?
> By my definition that's a crap game Even in the context of the original game release in 1996? > But millions of people have fun playing it and its a big part of their lives Yes and all they have to do for that is buy one of the many Pokemon games between 1996 and 2021 and start playing and enjoying the game for whatever it is they get out of it, be it story, gameplay, collecting or PvP. Now where is the connection…
> Even in the context of the original game release in 1996?
The point of that comment was to say "crap" is an entirely subjective opinion. Myself telling you that yes it was crap even in 1996 is not going to change the validity of the sentence I just said.
The connection which you aren't able to see which to me is extremely obvious, is that people who play with crypto "start playing and enjoying the game for whatever it is they get out of it, be it story, gameplay, collecting or PvP."
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#277Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the genuine and useful innovations that are now possible (yes, there are many) Not trying to troll, but can you explain some of them? Not in the abstract, but in end-user/product terms.
My favorite example of late is http://royal.io . You can purchase a token (NFT) that represents fractional ownership in the licensing rights of a musician's song or album, and also comes along with other perks (such as free or discounted merch and concert tickets). The proceeds from the NFT sales help fund the artist's project, and then you participate in the upside by receiving a share of royalties for holding the t…
You’ve described a share in a private company. Not only do you not need an NFT for that, using an NFT provides you no additional guarantees.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Again you're conflating a bunch of unrelated concepts. Equities may trade above a fair valuation - individually, or as a group. That doesn't mean they're not as a group positive-sum instruments. You may lose money on a positive-sum instrument. They're also not money, and never claimed to be. You're forcing a narrative around short timeframes. Equity markets are tied to the performance of the business in the full cour…
> Equity markets are tied to the performance of the business in the full course of time which is tied to labor. They're not though, and they haven't been for centuries. I gave you 3 examples off the top of my head. Markets are tied to sentiment ; let me refer you to the Keynesian beauty contest[1]. This is very basic economic theory. > Crypto like futures and options are zero-sum or negative-sum instruments if you in…
Markets are tied to sentiment in the short term, but to labor performance in the long term - this is the distinction I was trying to make. I'm just re-stating the adage that in the short term the market is a popularity content but in the long term it is a weighing machine. You called out AMC and GME. AMC was trading at like $8 in 2020. It spiked to $60, and its back down to $15. Which honestly I could make a case for since they took advantage of the speculative mania to clear a bunch of debt off their books.
Give GME a hot minute and the same thing will happen - it has already started. Peaked at $500 and is sitting at $98.50.
> There is no "rake" in crypto, so I'm not even sure what you mean by that.
There's a few different rakes. The overwhelming majority of crypto trading takes place on centralized exchanges where they take a commission on each trade. Off exchanges, in PoW currencies, new coins are issued which are then sold on these centralized exchanges to pay the bills. This exerts negative price pressure socializing the cost of running the network - another form of rake. In a PoS currency new tokens are issued to validators where non-stakers are diluted - another form of rake.
In each case (exchanges, miners, stakers) a commission is taken by the folks operating the game, which is exactly what a rake is in poker.
Expiry is not why options are the same as crypto. It's the zero-sum nature that's the same. Winners pay the losers, no new value is created in the options market. Ditto the crypto market.
> This might be true, but people trade all kinds of things I personally find dumb (Pokémon cards, rare sneakers, etc.). Looks like a lot of people see value in cryptocurrency, who am I to judge.
For sure, but Pokemon cards aren't claiming to be money and aren't legal tender in one of the poorest countries on earth. It's an issue due to scale, not due to its intrinsically being dumb, which to be clear, it also is. We cannot allow it to get to the point where its stupidity represents a systemic risk to the rest of us who choose not to treat Pokemon cards as money.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#279You made a critical mistake in your opening sentence: you conflated 3 very different things, not a promising start. "Blockchain technology" is just a consensus protocol, cryptocurrencies are currencies (well, one of them is at least), and NFTs are effectively pet rocks at the moment. I'm having a hard time seeing why that demands a marshalling of all true "technologists"... to do what, exactly? Refuse to work on projects involving those three things? Demand governments coordinate a global round up of those who are presently doing such work? Is this the final form for those that have repeatedly declared bitcoin dead - year after year, growing more and more furious as they calculate how much their terrible opinion has cost?
Name one technology that was successfully eradicated by astroturfing and legislation, instead of genuine market forces. Now, if you somehow manage to do that - were the users of that technology compelled to act against their own interest in service to jetsetters gathered around Hillary Clinton in Davos Switzerland? Because that is exactly what you'll need to do in order to get your way.
Re: Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
#280I dislike this kind of consensus-building rhetoric and I don't like seeing it on the front page of HN. By all means present critiques of crypto/web3, but don't make false claims along the lines of "all right-thinking people agree that X is a scourge upon the earth". It's equivalent to starting a conversation off with a loaded question - a useful tactic if you're trying to score points, but not likely to lead to anyon…
Your comment is literally the ideological problem.