Live data from Hacker News

Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

as1ndu.xyz

51–60 of 330 posts

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#51

The "lack of intuitive private key management" is worth expanding on. Would it not be nice if you could, maybe for a small fee, have some trusted entity store your private key for you? One could perhaps imagine storing a printout of the private key in some kind of physical "safe deposit" box, to be maintained by such an entity? But maybe that is to cumbersome and we can do so entirely digitally? In that case I guess…

Look up "social recovery wallets" (i.e. Argent).

Here's an article by Vitalik Buterin himself making a case for it: https://vitalik.ca/general/2021/01/11/recovery.html

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#52
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin has all of the problems listed in the article and is, arguably, not yet providing the social value that blockchain could. Not sure how a high market cap is a counter argument to that.

Especially considering market cap is a totally made up number and if everybody tried to get out at once they would get a fraction of a fraction of it. (1) But it's pointless to tell this to a cryptofreak because they're so heavily invested in it they make zealots look reasonable. (1) not to mention the fact that as soon as there is volatility exchange sites go down, even the bigger ones.

Wait until you find out what happens when people try to take out their money all at once from banks... I remember back in the day when people used to call early internet users internetfreaks and zealots. Now it's the same with Bitcoin. Whatever...

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#53

Is this what Gell-Mann amnesia feels like? I happen to be a bit into cryptocurrency, and day after day I see these super basic surface-level takes on blockchain get posted here and even upvoted to the top spot. Are the other popular submissions here, on programming languages, the internet, entrepeneurship and what have you of similar low quality, but I just don't have the experience in those fields to realize it? Thi…

This happens a lot in topics that the HN community is interested in but not very knowledgeable in general. You can usually trust the top voted articles in programming and entrepeneurship because a lot of people here know about that. But, for example, in maths and music (I happen to know something about those) I see a lot of really bad articles and takes being upvoted.

I think it happens even for topics of programming and entrepreneurship. HN is not a representative sample of the software industry.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#54

I think the #1 reason blockchain doesn't work is very simple - the technology is broken beyond fixability. This article is two years old, but the same variations of these excuses always come up when the crypto ideologues are grilled on why their utopiaic vision hasn't come about, for all of blockchain's existence. Blockchain is awful for most things compared to a centralized or distributed database: it is inefficient…

> the technology is broken beyond fixability

[citation needed]

Crypto ideologues are a strawman. Anyone working on the actual tech agrees that blockchains are useful if, and only if, you can't rely on a single party and need a decentralized, trustless append-only database. Otherwise, why bother with the extra complexity? That's the whole point of blockchains, after all.

Technology choices are complex set of trade-offs, even within the blockchain space.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#55
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin has all of the problems listed in the article and is, arguably, not yet providing the social value that blockchain could. Not sure how a high market cap is a counter argument to that.

The market cap is a counter argument because it shows the trust people, and lately corporations put into Bitcoin as a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation. The market cap proves that bitcoin/blockchain/cryptocurrency enthusiasts put their money where their mouth is.

I hardly doubt you'll find any enconomist working in those corporations fearing inflation. Inflation has been a non-issue since the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_I...

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#56

Is this what Gell-Mann amnesia feels like? I happen to be a bit into cryptocurrency, and day after day I see these super basic surface-level takes on blockchain get posted here and even upvoted to the top spot. Are the other popular submissions here, on programming languages, the internet, entrepeneurship and what have you of similar low quality, but I just don't have the experience in those fields to realize it? Thi…

Technical content is generally of much higher standard. Although HackerNews sometimes feels a bit like an echo chamber with the type of content that gets popular.

I think there’s just too many crypto-sceptics here, and that’s a shame because crypto solved a lot of challenges they’re talking about, and is on the rally to democratise everything financial related. Something big that many people still miss on, but with about 0.5% adoption rate we’re at the early stage of the innovators stage. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technology_adoption_life_cyc...

Give it a few years until we get to the early adopters and for sure the quality of content will improve. It just needs more people reading about it and adopting it.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#57
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market cap is a counter argument because it shows the trust people, and lately corporations put into Bitcoin as a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation. The market cap proves that bitcoin/blockchain/cryptocurrency enthusiasts put their money where their mouth is.

I hardly doubt you'll find any enconomist working in those corporations fearing inflation. Inflation has been a non-issue since the 1980s. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Consumer_Price_I...

And yet...

https://wtfhappenedin1971.com

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#58
post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bitcoin has all of the problems listed in the article and is, arguably, not yet providing the social value that blockchain could. Not sure how a high market cap is a counter argument to that.

The market cap is a counter argument because it shows the trust people, and lately corporations put into Bitcoin as a store of wealth and a hedge against inflation. The market cap proves that bitcoin/blockchain/cryptocurrency enthusiasts put their money where their mouth is.

Market cap means nothing. I can create 10^32 coins out of thin air, sell one coin at 1$ to one customer. And the next thing I have is a coin with higher marketcap than bitcoin.

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#59
post #5

To the scalability issues section I'd add the environmental aspect. It has already been reported that by some estimates Bitcoin today consumes more energy than Argentina, and that's with an estimated 1 million active wallets per day. Argentina is home to about 50 million people. This means that in order to have Bitcoin serve as the daily currency for all of Argentina's 50 million people would at least 50-tuple its en…

The energy argument has been debunked over and over again. I recommend you read this thread by Yassine Elmanjdra (analyst at ARK Invest): https://twitter.com/yassineARK/status/1360343382556483587?s=...

I don't think he understands the concept of efficiency. More efficient means doing the same thing at a lower cost. What same thing does bitcoin do at a lower cost compared to what?

Re: Why blockchain is not yet working (2018)

#60

The "lack of intuitive private key management" is worth expanding on. Would it not be nice if you could, maybe for a small fee, have some trusted entity store your private key for you? One could perhaps imagine storing a printout of the private key in some kind of physical "safe deposit" box, to be maintained by such an entity? But maybe that is to cumbersome and we can do so entirely digitally? In that case I guess…

You just recreated consumer banking.

> I think that's their point. There's a lot of discussion that 'banks will become obsolete with crypto' that forgets that banks are not the currency, they just manage it. If crypto becomes widespread banks will keep on existing, they'll just move to manage cryptocurrencies.

> You just recreated consumer banking.

While I personally detest the notion of such a model, and things like GME show why that is: I realized that after 10 years we really are going to have to simplify this tech to that level in a way that it's indistinguishable to the old model if we are onboard them at all. Which is why Kraken taking the lead in this is happening [0].

We collectively opposed this system so much that once we on boarded all the nerds we had a massive blindspot and didn't take pause and realize that the immense complexity to work and use Bitcoin on an everyday basis would be near impossible for the average person who struggled with HS math. And that's often who needs this tech the most, as they often the first to fall victim to the pernicious and illegal actions of banks with things like compounding overdraft fees, mortgage scams etc...

I was used to having to use run a full node on QT with no smart phone for the first 4-5 years so it's all simple to me now, but that is all relative to where you start and when I started I couldn't even code enough to do more than a simple 'Hello world' command but with time I became a founder of a fintech start up and then developer and consultant at a multi-national corporation because this tech evolved so fast and demanded I keep up, so it was a massive learning curve but more than anything I was ready and willing to learn; which I KNOW most people don't want to do.

HN is also a very good cross section that makes me keep coming back at ATHs because even amongst tech workers many keep talking about how 'bad' the tech is without taking the time to even look into it beyond the sensationalist headlines the media makes up as fact and they repeat the same tired narrative, and they too are reluctant if not entirely incapable of undertaking what we think is 'simple' but also the best deterrent for the inherit corruption of the fiat World and also the basis of OPSEC and is best inculcated in a simple mantra: not your keys, not your Bitcoin. Out thinking your enemy and creating new way to route around their absurd system is exhausting, and spending time playing factorio and with legos is fun.

You'd think for a place like HN that is so quick to pat itself on the back for learning a new programming language and boasting about it here in some perverse form of virtue signalling as an autodidactic impresario they'd be the first to see the immense novelty Bitcoin holds (and to an extension it's Blockchain and it's verification, and consensus model) and the fun challenge to understand it would be and ultimately why some of the world's best cryptographers (who at their core have to love to solve complex problems and learn new skills along the way) work in this space. This sentiment is a total contradiction to the philosophy the early days of Silicon Valley had, but has given way to this more petty and servile wave of infantile 'technologists' that are beholden to FAANG so this is clearly what happens when even 'smart people' get things wrong: they try to justify their errors with these campaign smears. Which is why I'm glad so many are leaving CA, hopefully it can go back to it's cypherpunk roots it had in the 80s and 90s.

So, rather than commit to endless Pyrrhic victories trying to fight this with ideological fervor and an unfounded hope people will just eventually 'learn on their own' I realize that time is the most pressing issue, COVID was just a reminder how quickly things can change for the worse, and we should just offer these service as an inevitability for those whose mindsets are not apt to a paradigm shift.

It's crazy to see just how many on HN are incredibly jealous and over all envious about Bitcoin's success, you'd think they would be elated that open source tech is what disrupted finance, but then you realize how many are only 'successful' in Life because of their monetary net worth measured in fiat and how they ignored or simply dismissed Bitcoin because it was too complicated. Their work is not their own, and they are beholden to their employers for identity and purpose, and Bitcoin is just a reminder of why it might have been a waste of time when M1 and M2 spikes happen.

For those of us who worked in Bitcoin professionally we can point and extrapolate the value we derived from it, and some of us can even point to landmark legislation, thought to be impossible, that had to be changed in part because of our efforts and that gives us a form of satisfaction they will never have. So even if it wasn't the safe, or even profitable undertaking sometimes it was worth it because money may be important but it isn't everything.

We got two of the biggest names in Fintech (Musk and Dorsey) on our side, one being the richest man on the planet stating crypto will be used on Mar's economy; but we really need the new wave of users so we should also just acquiesce and create the walled gardens and gaurd-railed sandboxes they so desperately pine for, in hope that one day they could remove the training wheels if they so choose.

They thought they had it so good, for so long, so now when something comes along and shows them that their jails are opened they suffer from a sort of anxiety when they're not in one, so I say: lets just build it for them, but give them a key they can keep inside and use if and when they are ever ready, while the rest of us continue to operate as we always intended Bitcoin to be.

Post reply on HN