> All that to say, a lot has changed in the technology world in the past six to twelve years
It sure has. But not really that fundamentally, since 2009.
A lot has changed in the blockchain space too. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't true. A lot of those changes are on par with some of the tech advancements mentioned before my quote in the article. In 2009, you had bitcoin, so basically a distributed consensus workaround that enables artificial scarcity of fungible digital items. Today, you have sharded blockchains, triple entry bookkeeping, proof of stake, blockchains that handle incentivized file storage, alternate name lookup systems, purchasing compute power on an automated order book, liquidity pools (a major, major fintech advancement if you're not familiar with then), arbitrary code execution with a canonical record of it.
It is absolutely still early days.
Because these are decentralized consensus networks, there's inertia. Bitcoin is never going to be cutting edge. Because there's a lot of money to be made, there will be scams. Most of the "cutting edge" isn't cutting edge at all. But there are some real developments happening, allowing novel use cases, enabling very interesting things to be done.
I'm not a fan of the whole web3 concept. I think 99% of the selling points that the charlatans hype every market cycle are nonsense. But a little digging beyond an animated JS bloat landing page (a red flag all it's own) and you can quickly figure out what projects potentially have something and what's bullshit. Or you can do what I do and assume a project is a scam until proven otherwise.
> blockchains that handle incentivized file storage, alternate name lookup systems
It would be a shame if IPFS and Filecoin end up in the dustbin of history if the web3 music stops. They're the only reasonable non-financial applications of blockchain tech that I've been able to wrap my head around to date.
Yep, they're great. I prefer IPFS without the incentive layer of filecoin, but it is interesting to be able to incentivize storage in protocol, and there's obvious use cases. Plenty of people pay google drive or Dropbox for extra storage. Democratizing access to the demand and supply side of that market is pretty cool.
There was a project called Golem aiming to do the same thing with compute, it was pretty cool last time I read about it. Not sure how far along it is, and I'm sure there are other projects aiming to do the same thing.
Well then what's the point of this discussion? The thread is "how has it advanced? How long can you call it early days?" If you just stop reading rebuttals as soon as they're mentioned you're better off talking to a wall, and you'd waste less people's time that way too.
Because technical minutiae are completely irrelevant if they don't eventually convert into useful features for products with at least some level of mass-market appeal.
I have yet to see a single enticing idea for blockchain/web3/whatever for a consumer or business not related to finance. If that requires an ever-increasing number of technical challenges to be solved for that to happen, then we're just looking at vaporware.
> Because technical minutiae are completely irrelevant if they don't eventually convert into useful features for products with at least some level of mass-market appeal.
Why?
You might care about building businesses, mass-market appeal, blah blah, but many (most?) technologies were created because people thought they were cool or interesting or just because they could. Nobody knew what LASERs were for when they invented them.
To me the point of tech is to invent stuff and see what people do with it, not to make money or feed the economy or whatever, that’s a byproduct. Which coin is worth more money or what will gain mass market adoption is the least exciting part of the whole thing to me. We started with bitcoin having BFT consensus and proof of work to create decentralised, permissionless value (volatile or not!) but we now have multiple chains that can execute arbitrary code, sharding, performance improvements, lightweight chains, various types of proof of stake, token standards, automated market makers, DeFI, NFTs, DAOs, data availability proofs, IPFS, etc. etc.… that’s incredibly exciting! And if you read the actual academic and published research and see the advances being made, it’s even more incredible and wide ranging, and progress is very rapid.
Of course it’d be nice if _some_ of it changed the world (and maybe it already has), but there’s plenty of time for that and it may only be 1% of the interesting new tech that turns out to do so. So what? It’s incredibly cool just to learn and understand it all and think about what might be. (And sure, buy tokens or whatever if you like them or just fancy a gamble. Do your research and don’t spend what you can’t afford to lose.)
Right when it wasn’t subject to centralized control which could actually, easily, and covertly scam people. Just because you say something doesn’t mean it’s true or smart. Being short in the delusion of being clever is a sin of rationality and you should repent to Hitchens as soon as you can.
Bitcoin is not a Ponzi scheme because IF it successfully achieves a certain level of adoption or usage it WILL have some intrinsic value. The current value can be seen as a view of the average expected future value. A risky bet/investment is not the same as a Ponzi scheme, even if _some_ people are talking it up like scammers.
The fact that YOU do not believe that future will happen doesn't make it a Ponzi, just a bad investment in your eyes. And yes, some people talking up their book and trying to manipulate it's price — a pump and dump — is still a scam on their part, but it doesn't make the underlying asset a Ponzi scheme.
At a bare minimum there are some fringe use cases (no matter how unsavoury - dark web, ransomware, etc.), so I'd argue that barring a major security flaw, even if bitcoin was banned everywhere, the floor price would be >0. (I am considerably more optimistic for long term use cases, but we're just talking about whether it's a Ponzi or not here, which doesn't require any extra optimism.)
I honestly don't know if BTC will end up above the current price in 2, 5, 10, 50 years time, but I do still think it's incredibly cool that we were able to create something with a demonstrable non-zero value and no centralised control.
The challenge now is to keep iterating the ideas, make new weird and wonderful things, throw them all at the wall, and see if anything sticks. Luckily plenty of people seem as excited about that research and exploration for the sake of it as me, so I think we're going to get to find out :)
its interesting that at this point, the arguments on HN have become so one sided and idiotic, that every time i see a web3 article, you might as well skip the comment section. the actual smart people that are into the blockchain as tech and a concept are providing really interesting points/examples, while maintaining a healthy and educated level of skepticism.
then you have the HN holier than thou geniuses who think they have it all figured out because they can quickly scream ponzi over and over. it's fuckin weird. i always subscribed to this forum because it's full of nerds who are deeply interested in tech and can debate things neutrally. so not the case lately.
and this is coming from someone who is deeply interested in the tech and fascinated by some of the subscultures that had been created out of crypto, while also remaining extremely skeptical and very turned off by some of the scams and mindless fanatics that exist. but, i still dive deep into whitepapers, and read a lot to have a good opinion on a subject, like...you should. there is A LOT of interesting shit in this space. i've been into it for a couple of months now and have yet to scratch the surface, honestly.
...yet the comments are always the same low effort crap which makes me realize nobody knows or understands a goddamn thing about this tech on here. really reductive surface level points.
> the actual smart people that are into the blockchain as tech
actual smart or just hustlers? It is a scam. Yes, you can make money from it. But are you ok with ripping people off? Because the only way to make a gain with any coin is to force the next bigger fool to sit on a bigger loss. They might not have realized it but it's there. All of these made up usages are just there to trick people to buy your coin at an elevated price -- but there's still no uses of coins which have a real world use case and couldn't be better done with a centralized database (or sometimes git). I just wrote up in a top comment that when tech does deliver something real it needs no explanation or these discussions: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29951993
You also can take a very lucrative job at Facebook. It might be interesting tech too. I refused one this week.
You can also like... use the technology to get the coins. Mine from your laptop for some BTC. Use some of those 2TB hard drives in your drawer to host files. Sign up for airdrops, provide liquidity in defi... I haven't spent alot on buying any coins and i enjoy the space. I've always treated it like this neat little world that me and my friends can compete in. See who can out nerd the other nerds, have late night rust marathons to do stupid shit with substrate.
You seem to forget that it's about interacting in the crypto economy, not selling all your coins to make more fiat. I wonder how long this fad will last of people hating on crypto because they don't understand it.. Probably forever?
i can tell by this comment that you've spent no time in the space and it's all made in bad faith so i'll just disengage here and save us both the time.
Bitcoin is a scam -- whether you call it a Ponzi or a Nakamoto scheme as suggested by Preston Byrne -- because the players are split into two groups, where each member of one group is guaranteed to win and the second en masse is guaranteed to loose, further they are funneling this loss to the members of the first group.
Edit: I can't answer for some reason below but I can edit this one, it's miners vs everyone else.
That's what the big blockers thought, and they got their own BCH network to show for it. I can't find any adoption metrics to show that the miner-controlled BCH chain has won.
On BTC, miners just run the code and get rewarded to do that simpleton job.
This seems to be an incredibly simplistic view to me. I can’t even identify which of these two supposed groups I would fit into, let alone map it onto the rest of the people I’ve met who are somehow interested, involved, or invested in bitcoin…
But the things I mentioned aren't technical minutiae, they're real technological advances with real applications, today.
> ...not related to finance.
Why place that arbitrary restriction? If all this stuff does is improve finance is that not enough? Again, I'm not a web3 evangelist, this stuff was originally created strictly to create financial tools. All I expect any of this stuff to do is change finance.
But still, the development of new cryptography, new consensus mechanisms, new routing protocols and network topologies, these are all advances that have come as a result of all this and they're not related to finance. Again, just because you don't know about an advancement doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Several curves are being researched, non interactive ZKPs are getting heavy development and research due to their applicability here, interest in cryptographic accumulators is growing, people are finding novel ways to do old techniques, bulletproofs are an example, look at Mimblewimble, it's an interesting implementation of a blockchain using Schnorr signatures. That's just what I've got off the top of my head.
Do we have proof of stake or do we have a lot of bitcoin folks avoiding criticism about the wasteful nature of most chains by claiming that proof of stake will fix all this.
How many coins are actually using proof of stake?
Why haven't the biggest including Ethereum done so?
The same reason Bitcoin doesn't implement every tom dick and Harry's supposed solution to every technical problem. The big boys have to get it right the first time. Again, inertia.
Ethereum does have proof of stake, a protocol called Casper FFG. It is currently live on the Ethereum beacon chain, waiting for consensus to move the entire network to it.
There are lots of smaller projects trying different protocols they call proof of stake too, as well as different proof of whatever they came up with for whatever reason. Most of them are veiled centralization, some of them are interesting for one reason or another. I'm not here to shill networks or coins so I won't be tossing names around.
Right now Ethereum has 9 million ETH deposited on its proof-of-stake network, worth about $30 billion.
That's running in parallel to the main network, which is still mining. Code to merge the two and eliminate mining is currently running on a public test network. Previous upgrades have all taken less than a year to go live after the launch of their public test networks.
Most of the "proof of stake" coins are some form of delegated proof of stake, usually with an opaque and shady set of highly compensated validators with hidden connections to the project. Effectively proof of authority masquerading as proof of stake. This lets them have big TPS bragging rights while maintaining the appearance that they are running a decentralized blockchain rather than a centralized database with extra steps.
Real, decentralized proof of stake is a hard problem that has only just started to become reality.
Changes in the implementations are not the question. It's application that she's skeptical of. Who has found a reason to use Blockchain for anything other than cryptocurrency?
I actually witnessed one attempt. An actual Fortune 100 built a Blockchain for their public communications. Mostly just an excuse to show off their street cred. It landed with an absolute thud. Nobody cared.
One idea that I am fond of is Nym, an implementation of the high-latency mix network Loopix[0], but with incentives for nodes to act as mixnodes and message providers, using a model in which users pay nodes for their bandwidth. The goal being to provide strong anonymity in the face of a global passive adversary.
I’m not a crypto fan, but I’m not sure what that example demonstrates. A company made an overengineered gimmick just to show off their street cred; nothing came of it, just as they expected, and it was a waste of the engineering. I’m lost as to how this reflects poorly on the engineering technique.
It sure has. But not really that fundamentally, since 2009.
A lot has changed in the blockchain space too. Just because you don't know about it doesn't mean it isn't true. A lot of those changes are on par with some of the tech advancements mentioned before my quote in the article. In 2009, you had bitcoin, so basically a distributed consensus workaround that enables artificial scarcity of fungible digital items. Today, you have sharded blockchains, triple entry bookkeeping, proof of stake, blockchains that handle incentivized file storage, alternate name lookup systems, purchasing compute power on an automated order book, liquidity pools (a major, major fintech advancement if you're not familiar with then), arbitrary code execution with a canonical record of it.
It is absolutely still early days.
Because these are decentralized consensus networks, there's inertia. Bitcoin is never going to be cutting edge. Because there's a lot of money to be made, there will be scams. Most of the "cutting edge" isn't cutting edge at all. But there are some real developments happening, allowing novel use cases, enabling very interesting things to be done.
I'm not a fan of the whole web3 concept. I think 99% of the selling points that the charlatans hype every market cycle are nonsense. But a little digging beyond an animated JS bloat landing page (a red flag all it's own) and you can quickly figure out what projects potentially have something and what's bullshit. Or you can do what I do and assume a project is a scam until proven otherwise.