Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

My stance is: forget about this "blockchain" rhetoric thing. What was interesting for cryptocurrencies was the ability of producing scarce, unique, digital assets. That was groundbreaking. Then other cryptocurrencies expanded on that.

Write only data structures themselves are not new and not that valuable on their own.

But the interesting thing is the decentralized, trustless structures it enables. And just pinning that on blockchain sounds bad.

This whole things is still early and it is the basis of _a lot_ of speculation. But I see this whole ecosystem enabling a whole new class of self-governing communities, websites and structures, some good, some bad.




Give me a blockchain that isn't inherently structured like MLM-Ponzi schemes (and unbiased people who use it not claiming the contrary) and then we're talking.

Likewise, I'd suggest that pinning the problems you suggest are solved with "decentralized, trustless structures" - ignores the fact of reality, the physical world and real trust networks, centralized organizations, that reflect the state of society; Bitcoin et al may be a bridge but attempting to circumvent and ignore the positives of institutions is a bad idea.


> but attempting to circumvent and ignore the positives of institutions is a bad idea.

I mean, maybe? I did try to qualify with "some good, some bad", and I am certain some are bad, I'm not some idealist trying to sell you something. It just _does_ enable the possibility of circumventing institutions, and it will keep doing so, no stopping it, IMO.

> Give me a blockchain that isn't inherently structured like MLM-Ponzi schemes

Depending on your definition of "MLM-Ponzi schemes", it could be that the whole of human society might fall under it. Besides, I did mention I am not too fond of the "blockchain" name and think cryptocurrency is much more apt.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: