Possession of the private key also allows you to create signatures which prove your ownership, while not revealing your private key. Artworks could be encrypted and only decryptable by such signatures. Client applications could be built to incorporate this.
We have a big problem today in that our information technology's ability to infinitely create copies of digital artifacts seemingly breaks the incentive mechanism to create. I.e. art, news, authorship worked better when you could sell physically sell copies of your album, book, painting. This has resulted in a glut of low quality stuff.
Think of the long term. It would be very good for society to solve this problem. With the distribution abilities of the internet, plus the ability to monetize adding incentives to create, we should see much more, and higher quality art. It would enable more of our economy to move online, which would be good for the environment. I.e. humans are mostly interested in social status. Today we show that status by creating and showing off possessions. But also we need jobs. What will people do for work in 2050? Perhaps we'll still be busily working to climb the pile of monkeys, but now with virtual goods. That's more sustainable than the current situation.
For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. Part is a justifiable reaction against the hype. Another part I think is FOMO. But also, the crypto space is only partially about technology. It is very inefficient technology from a functionality point of view. But from an economic point of view, where the problem is coordinating human activity in the way that money does, I think there's a lot of potential there.
At a certain point there is more risk in being a "permabear" than there is in taking a measured interest. The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all?
> For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. … The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all?
The negative reaction is _due_ to HN being a technology-heavy forum: the blockchain field is a marketing invention and divides into two camps: Merkle trees, which are useful but not new, and everything else, which is uncompetitively reinventing commonplace concepts with language designed to attract speculators’ money. For a decade, salespeople have been showing, repeating marketing points which don’t hold up to much thought, and hammering the “use your money to make me rich” message, so it’s not surprising that it’s hard to get attention with the same spiel now.
Put another way: after 12 years, huge amounts of money and attention, where’s anything clearly better than its predecessor? (For the user, not the seller) That’s considerably longer than it took for the web to have a huge impact on advertising, sales, dating, travel, banking, research, job hunting, etc. despite much lower barriers to adoption. Someone trying to invent a new DRM system to make signed prints isn’t remotely close.
> where’s anything clearly better than its predecessor?
At the moment, there isn't a single alternative product for a state-free currency as a store of value that has reached the valuation of Bitcoin.
I'm not even a Bitcoiner, but if this isn't proof to you at this point, nothing will satisfy you. The proof doesn't have to convince you it's the future of currency, but it should certainly statisfy the question of "how has blockchain enabled anything new and interesting?".
The truth is, blockchain is less of a technological innovation than it is an organizational one. It is technology that attempts to digitize human organizational patterns as opposed to simply analog processes.
Those selling crypto to the moon and profiting off of the hype certainly ruin it for everyone. The promises, the lies, the failure to deliver is certainly an issue to take up. At the same time, there is quite a bit behind the lies that is worth looking at.
> At the moment, there isn't a single alternative product for a state-free currency as a store of value that has reached the valuation of Bitcoin.
I thought the Bitcoin people stopped referring to it as a currency a few years ago when it became obvious that it had failed to be capable of filling that role? The current “store of value” sales pitch seems likely to follow a similar trajectory since, unlike a reserve currency like the USD or a traditional commodity like gold or real estate, it has no inherent value other than the current social consensus and is thus highly volatile.
This comes back to the same question of what value it offers. Someone who wants buy or sell things defaults to faster, cheaper, and safer options. Someone who wants to save value has faster, cheaper, safer options which have much longer track records of predictable valuation. A devout libertarian who thinks “state-free” is important similarly has a range of options, many of which do not conveniently provide their government with an itemized log of every transaction.
We have a big problem today in that our information technology's ability to infinitely create copies of digital artifacts seemingly breaks the incentive mechanism to create. I.e. art, news, authorship worked better when you could sell physically sell copies of your album, book, painting. This has resulted in a glut of low quality stuff.
Think of the long term. It would be very good for society to solve this problem. With the distribution abilities of the internet, plus the ability to monetize adding incentives to create, we should see much more, and higher quality art. It would enable more of our economy to move online, which would be good for the environment. I.e. humans are mostly interested in social status. Today we show that status by creating and showing off possessions. But also we need jobs. What will people do for work in 2050? Perhaps we'll still be busily working to climb the pile of monkeys, but now with virtual goods. That's more sustainable than the current situation.
For a hacker & technology forum, Hacker News is remarkably negative on crypto topics. Part is a justifiable reaction against the hype. Another part I think is FOMO. But also, the crypto space is only partially about technology. It is very inefficient technology from a functionality point of view. But from an economic point of view, where the problem is coordinating human activity in the way that money does, I think there's a lot of potential there.
At a certain point there is more risk in being a "permabear" than there is in taking a measured interest. The crypto space has been growing for 12 years ... is it really just a giant fraud at this point? No value, nothing of interest at all?