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

The Tinkerbell Griftopia

stephendiehl.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 251 posts

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#231

Post by Vetch »

mleonhard wrote: post #161
dbmikus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really agree that it's good to go in with a level head. If you highlight the extremes of either "believers" or "non-believers", both sides seem like low effort takes. I bucketed crypto projects into two categories: (1) things that are only possible on crypto networks, and (2) things that people aren't motivated to do on other networks. For example, the US is woefully missing a banking API, especially for consumers.…

Any technological progress obtained from cryptocurrency research will be the most expensive progress ever purchased in human history. The costs come from: - Opportunity cost of having lots of smart people focusing on cryptocurrency who could have been researching medicine, clean energy, or space tech. - Money spent on manufacturing and maintaining the cryptocurrency mining equipment. Those factories could be making o…

> Opportunity cost of having lots of smart people focusing on cryptocurrency who could have been researching medicine, clean energy, or space tech

It's doubtful many of those smart and obsessed enough to contribute to medicine, clean or space tech would be moved. What we would have seen is the same smart decentralized consensus obsessed people still working on formal proof systems, distributed consensus algorithms robust to adversaries, precursors to the vile offspring and post-capitalist or post-communist economies.

It's interesting that a lot of people lodge similar claims as you have, against crewed space missions even though you count it as having value.

> Those factories could be making other products that directly benefit peoples' lives.

Things were like this before cryptocurrencies and what you say is already possible despite cryptocurrencies but still does not happen. You might be interested in [Dives, Lazarus, and Alice](http://bactra.org/weblog/841.html).

> We currently have a shortage of electronics because of the pandemic.

Robustness sacrificed at the alter of efficiency means extra vulnerable to shocks and surprises.

> Coal Powerplants

Countries with or without PoW mining presence are still building coal fired and other CO2 generating powerplants. The world has not been smart about moving to clean tech fast enough.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#232

Post by streamofdigits »

paulgb wrote: post #58
iskander wrote: post #44

I think what Stephen misses in his campaign against crypto is that the old ideals have already been coopted and smothered with the corporatization of the web and splintering of what was a decentralized ecosystem into a megacorp walled gardens. I know there's a tiny community of non-crypto decentralized web advocates and I hope they win. But, the main force for a return to decentralization is in crypto and the only re…

I'm also bummed by the centralization and corporatization of the web. What web3 projects should I be looking at? What stands out as promising? Because when I look, I just see things that look like grifts, platforms that eschew centralized moderation and become spammy cesspools, or projects that actually aren't decentralized but co-opt the web3 name. But I'm open-minded, if there are things I'm missing.

forget web3. basically we are in a situation where lots of people, smart, tech savvy people, stupid band wagon people, well meaning people, me-too people, go-with-the-next-big-thing people, all made a wrong bet that the particular set of algorithmic technologies and protocols that bitcoin spawned are a generic blueprint for a new decentralized digital infrastructure.

it aint.

the choice is not between web3 and meta-dystopia. The choice is between people owning and running their own hardware and software versus being granted that "privilege" by some digital overlords.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#233

Post by 015a »

stanleydrew wrote: post #187
015a wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last night, I was buying some dumb something on some random website, as one does. And they offered cryptocurrency as a checkout option. "Well, I've got some money in coinbase; why not try it? Its only $10." It was the best "stateless" checkout experience I have ever had. Sure, Amazon is easier, but I already have an account with them. I'm talking specifically on a totally new website. Select a currency; pops up a QR…

The ability to dispute a charge has value, and the cost will be borne by someone. Removing Visa just means replacing it with some other entity that fills this need. Truly peer-to-peer cash transactions without recourse is a bad idea that I think will actually increase friction in the market, since people will take longer to make purchasing decisions.

Its true. I think this is the strongest argument against cryptocurrency-as-a-currency which proponents too easily gloss over.

Security issues e.g. disputed transactions is arguably something which would naturally happen less with crypto, given the higher security bar to accessing funds. 16 digit static card number versus real cryptography, pull versus push, etc. Additionally, most people (including me) shouldn't be managing their own wallets, and I feel too many proponents go all cut-and-dry "don't use coinbase, they're centralized finance"; the advantage is the ability to fall off coinbase and still have your money and transact with it, not to get rid of all centralized entities.

Chargebacks are something that simply can't be done in crypto. Well, they could be, with a more complex new currency that looks more like escrow rather than currency. Optimistic take: Its still a fantastic option today for goods which really don't qualify for chargebacks (think: digital downloads). Pessimistic take: Merchants hate chargebacks, and are the ones who ultimately decide which currencies they want to accept, so the lack of chargebacks won't actually impact uptake/usage.

In fact, this last point is why tons of porn providers already accept crypto. Adult content is an industry ripe with chargeback, which is why most processors won't touch them. The ones who do charge a ton in fees. They love crypto; no chance of a chargeback, and lower fees. Customers probably love it too; better anonymity.

> people will take longer to make purchasing decisions.

I'd be interested to know how many people seriously consider "I have recourse through my credit card if things go awry" as a major factor in purchasing decisions. I've DEFINITELY spent more to buy something from Amazon or direct from Apple, because I know their customer support is fantastic, and that's an avenue that won't go away with crypto. Card specific protections, I can't say I've ever considered, but that's just me.

There's still plenty of room in crypto for centralized entities, like Coinbase, to take on the role of a bank and absorb some of this responsibility. I'm imagining a "pay with crypto" versus "pay with coinbase" option, where the customer can opt-in to an additional X% transaction fee, paid to coinbase, for "purchase insurance" or something. Its not pure-crypto, but again: balance in all things.

Crypto is important not so it becomes the One Thing All Consumers buy Everything With in a Wholly Distributed and Decentralized World. Its just another option; an important one because it provides recourse for humans who have traditionally be spurred by the established western and wealthy-oriented banking system.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#234

Post by bonestamp2 »

wpietri wrote: post #230
bonestamp2 wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But I don't see what the NFT aspect adds. It's a very good question, and the answer was conveniently left out of the blog post at hand. The reason art NFTs were created to begin with was because in the traditional art world, the people who make nearly all of the money are not the people who actually make the art. It is the art dealers and the art collectors who take the lion's share of the money. The purpose of put…

There's no particular evidence that NFTs will change the economics of art. Indeed, given the rich history of scams, money laundering, grift, and fraud in the fungible token space, I'd say there's good reason to think artist will end up at least as screwed over. Indeed, given that the traditional art world will be eager to get in on it, it could be worse. > Art NFTs actually share the values of open source [...] impro…

> The whole point of an NFT is to create artificial scarcity in a post-scarcity medium.

That's not true for art NFTs. If you don't own the rights to an image, whether it's a regular old bitmap or an art NFT, there's no difference in scarcity as an observer of that image. But, as the artist who created a digital image vs an art NFT, there's a massive difference, and THAT is the whole point of an art NFT.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#235

Post by dbmikus »

mleonhard wrote: post #161
dbmikus wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really agree that it's good to go in with a level head. If you highlight the extremes of either "believers" or "non-believers", both sides seem like low effort takes. I bucketed crypto projects into two categories: (1) things that are only possible on crypto networks, and (2) things that people aren't motivated to do on other networks. For example, the US is woefully missing a banking API, especially for consumers.…

Any technological progress obtained from cryptocurrency research will be the most expensive progress ever purchased in human history. The costs come from: - Opportunity cost of having lots of smart people focusing on cryptocurrency who could have been researching medicine, clean energy, or space tech. - Money spent on manufacturing and maintaining the cryptocurrency mining equipment. Those factories could be making o…

It's an interesting question, but in my personal view trying to weigh the total moral value proposition of new technology is so incredibly difficult. If one could do it well, you could predict the future.

As an interesting hyperbolic comparison, is our understanding of nuclear fission and fusion worth it because two cities in Japan were bombed and thousands died? IDK

Edit: and this isn't to say we shouldn't be critical of Blockchain technology. I think the criticism of proof of work is important, and I'm glad that most chains are proof of stake or transitioning. Would we have made proof of stake if we first didn't validate the idea with a simpler proof of work implementation? Maybe. Maybe not.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#236

Post by dbmikus »

rodiger wrote: post #173
mleonhard wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any technological progress obtained from cryptocurrency research will be the most expensive progress ever purchased in human history. The costs come from: - Opportunity cost of having lots of smart people focusing on cryptocurrency who could have been researching medicine, clean energy, or space tech. - Money spent on manufacturing and maintaining the cryptocurrency mining equipment. Those factories could be making o…

Many people in the world don't have access to a functioning financial system- what's the benefit in building one?

Reductio ad absurdum, many people don't have access to computers, so what's the benefit of computers?

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#237

Post by dbmikus »

AlexandrB wrote: post #92
iskander wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> then that infrastructure manages to survive and continue to provide value even after the cryptocurrency house of cards collapses. That's my optimistic forecast for what happens after the current speculative bubble pops. We'll be left with e.g. universal sign-on via crypto wallet that's not owned by any corporation and can be used for cryptographic signature / voting / &c. We'll also have increasingly robust decentr…

> That's my optimistic forecast for what happens after the current speculative bubble pops. We'll be left with e.g. universal sign-on via crypto wallet that's not owned by any corporation and can be used for cryptographic signature / voting / &c. This seems entirely self-contradictory. How do you certify that a nominally anonymous cryptographic ID represents a particular individual for the purposes of signature/votin…

There's a bunch of cool stuff if you Google "proof of {humanity,personhood}". Here's the wiki page: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_personhood

It's all pretty new and not proven long term, but it is an area of active research.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#238

Post by cwkoss »

015a wrote: post #205
jjulius wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why is Disney worth $275B despite all of their movies hitting The Pirate Bay immediately upon their release? Merchandise, theme parks, movie tickets, cruises, live shows (eg "Disney on Ice"), and so on. You're typically not going to find an HD quality pirated movie the second it hits theaters, only once it's released to the home or sent out as a screener. That's only a tiny slice of their diversified pie. For the r…

So, would you agree with the following statement: The value of the real Mona Lisa is dominated by its physicality; the ability for its owner to touch and feel it. A few further thoughts to ponder over: 1) No one touches and feels the Mona Lisa. Now, that's something wholly unique to High Art, but it is worth bearing: the Mona Lisa sits in a vault, or behind panes of glass, only touched by caretakers, who don't even o…

I'll pay $1000 for the Mona Lisa. Just like that, theres a market for it now.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#239

Post by betwixthewires »

Hjfrf wrote: post #204
betwixthewires wrote: post #171

How exactly is cryptocurrency disconnected from classical economics?

Try pricing any cryptocurrency in a discounted cash flow model.

That's not classical economics, that's asset specific. Try pricing USD or a commodity or literally any other asset that doesn't represent financial investment in a business venture in a discounted cash flow model.

Re: The Tinkerbell Griftopia

#240

Post by 015a »

cwkoss wrote: post #238
015a wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, would you agree with the following statement: The value of the real Mona Lisa is dominated by its physicality; the ability for its owner to touch and feel it. A few further thoughts to ponder over: 1) No one touches and feels the Mona Lisa. Now, that's something wholly unique to High Art, but it is worth bearing: the Mona Lisa sits in a vault, or behind panes of glass, only touched by caretakers, who don't even o…

I'll pay $1000 for the Mona Lisa. Just like that, theres a market for it now.

A market requires both a buyer and a seller. There are no sellers; and thus, no market.
Post reply on HN