151–160 of 392 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Millions of people work at banks… lots of middlemen that maybe don’t need to be there anymore…
I mean you don't need people to manually make money transfers anymore, but I don't think many people do that. Banks have a lot of different jobs, very few of them are obsoleted by crypto, at least so far.
The author doesn't understand the value of distributed censorship resistant consensus that's secured by energy. Also the author fails to consider the situation of 80% of humanity who live in countries that experience hyperinflation frequently. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-pri...
Blockchains are cool. Very, very cool. Merkle trees on their own are pretty cool, and blockchains are just a Merkle tree hashed into a chain-like structure to create work for decentralized verification. This is a very clever concept, and it is the only known solution to the Byzantine Generals problem that doesn't involve a centralized authority (that I'm aware of). What about this is intrinsically "dangerous nonsense…
Edit to answer this question:
> What about this is intrinsically "dangerous nonsense"?
The article isn't about the tech itself, it's about the interfaces of the tech and the real world. The problems there are shameless shilling, deception & efficiency problems.
The author doesn't understand the value of distributed censorship resistant consensus that's secured by energy. Also the author fails to consider the situation of 80% of humanity who live in countries that experience hyperinflation frequently. https://bitcoinmagazine.com/culture/check-your-financial-pri...
I'm very sceptical of blockchain (though I've been in crypto off and on since 2013) but most of the arguments in this article are non-sensical. For example: > But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer. I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds…
The problem with the article is that there are no real arguments besides citing other articles. At best, it’s a summary of Bruce Schneier’s works with a catchy headline. I’m not a blockchain die-hard, but there are some solid practical uses. For instance, in trade finance where multiple parties in an environment with limited trust have to settle a complex transaction asynchronously, blockchain / DLT can really help.…
When does that happen?
Is winning such races at all valuable?
I'm very sceptical of blockchain (though I've been in crypto off and on since 2013) but most of the arguments in this article are non-sensical. For example: > But even if all code was without mistakes, blockchains can’t do anything against threats like scams, fraud, hacking of devices with keys for the blochain or just plain old typos in a coin transfer. I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds…
> I don't think protection against human-factor scams and frauds was ever a goal, you certainly never hear it as an argument. I don't think this argument is nonsensical. It's true that these things were not goals. The author's point, I think, is that obviously they should have been. Because this is how people lose money. You can't just call all the most important aspects of monetary transfers "out of scope" if you're…
Different people have different perspectives. Clearly a lot of coiners think it's totally fine to put the burden on the user. Of course the author is free to disagree, but it's silly to pretend there is only one possible set of priorities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no baby. The technology does not solve technical problems that havent been solved better. The only thing bchains does is give ppl with a lot of money to become stakeholders, the possibility to comodify even more parts of the internet. Thats the only upside of the technology, scam ppl for their money. https://www.stephendiehl.com/blog/against-crypto.html https://web3isgoinggreat.com/
double spending problem, anyone ?
> The idea to get rid of having to trust centralized organizations might sound tempting, but it doesn’t work: Blockchains don’t get rid of “trust”, they just change, who has to be trusted. What if a group of trusted organizations run a blockchain together?