I actually saw Vitalik speak last week or so here in Shenzhen came away less convinced than ever of their theoretical utility for anything but a tiny fraction of users.
In short, adding a decentralized network of paid/incentivized actors to any existing potential cryptographic problem space (a fair rough summary of the smart contract notion?), in particular the subset relevant for most businesses, doesn't seem to solve anything particularly well and typically decreases critical measures of engineering elegance such as simplicity, comprehensibility, predictability, etc. while increasing negative measures such as technical lock-in to piles of rapidly evolving technologies for which hiring and building is expensive and error-prone.
You could say very much the same thing about most supply-side innovations when they came out. Why buy a factory machine when your workers do it just fine? It's complicated, error-prone, you'll have to hire expensive, specialized mechanics to deal with it when it breaks down. It decreases measures of engineering elegance, like simplicity, comprehensibility and predictability. All the locking you into that vendor with a massive upfront capital cost.
Smart contracts eliminate trusted third parties (sometimes) and automate certain processes that previously couldn't be automated due to trust issues, or were automated but centralized (with the aggregating entity extracting rents). Fixing these things will reduce transaction costs globally, just as factory automation did.
Will it solve everything? No, at least not soon. Will it eliminate lawyers, courts, and so on? Not even close. But it will do some things. Things like escrow, notarization, and assurance contracts (e.g. kickstarter) are all easily amenable to blockchain / smart contract solutions. Prediction markets are another good one.
My point is basically this: People have been making unbelievably grandiose claims about cryptocurrencies. And those claims are, largely, bullshit. However, there are some things that they do very well, and they are starting to do them.
Maybe. If the input and output are the same, but the efficiency is larger, or the quality is greater or more controllable, then you have some value-add.
If the input and output are artificially constricted and the business case is basically undefined then skepticism is expected and logical.
I never denied there are use cases, just stated they are very limited. I stand by that assessment.
Ya, but if I may re-summarize that objection it's, 'except for all the things that it does improve'.
> If the input and output are artificially constricted and the business case is basically undefined then skepticism is expected and logical.
> I never denied there are use cases, just stated they are very limited. I stand by that assessment.
I don't disagree per se. I think we may just disagree over how limited is 'very limited'. I think, even just interbank transaction settlement (e.g. Ripple) is an enormously valuable usecase for blockchains. Some smart contracts make sense as well, keeping in mind that you can always offload parts of a contract to human auditors and mediators. People sometimes equate there being any human involvement with trustless execution being worthless. However, that's not really fair. For instance, suppose you are in a country with a corrupt legal system. You can't enter into a normal contract safely, because justice there is disbursed to the highest bidder. So, what do you do instead? You enter into a smart contract that specifies a mutually agreed upon 3rd party outside of the country as the arbiter of disputes, and gives them a private key that they can use to enforce their judgments. Now, you've created a functioning judicial system (admittedly, only for finance) in a country that didn't previously have it. I'd say that's a pretty valuable use case for people in say, Venezuela, or Russia.
If total ETH sent to contract address by date X > Amount Y then send the ETH to the fundraiser, else return the ETH.
A saying goes "Ideas are cheap, execution is everything". That's where this value of $500m comes in. It's in the brand reputation the company has built. In the traffic they generate by people browsing their site and discovering projects they might back. In the UI they've set up, and most of all, it's in the trust that they actually do some amount of quality checking. In the thought that projects on Kickstarter stand a better chance of executing than projects on competitor's sites.
You can get someone to write the necessary code for "if funded send to x, else return funds" on any freelance site for a four-digit amount, whether you want it in Solidity or PHP. That's the easy part. The hard part then is building a better platform, policing the projects on there, ensuring quality and attracting backers.
Can you do so in a way that I as a funder don't need to trust you the intermediary?
No, and you can't with smart contracts either (the intermediary being the creator of the contract), unless funders are restricted to people with the skill to analyze the contract code. As proven by the DAO.
And even if you could, you've replaced only a small-and-useless-in-isolation piece of Kickstarter by doing so.
I'm not saying it's the entirety of kickstarter but I think you're being overly dismissive of the concept. It could work well for things like bug or feature bounties, or other similar situations where having a company to sit in the middle and hold cash requires building up too much reputation than it is worth. Running costs become just the transaction & code running costs on whatever network you're using too.
For everyone who doesn't do it on their own, they either have to trust the originator or trust someone who has done it, so for most users you aren't eliminating the need for a trusted third party.
> I'm not saying it's the entirety of kickstarter
That was the upthread claim.
Which is a different trust model.
There are a few major things:
1. Not everyone has to trust the originator
2. It's possible for me to trust a third party which is different from the one asking for my money
3. It's possible for me to trust a combination of many third parties, given that any one reliable third party that cries foul would be enough
So there's a huge difference between "trust me and give me your money" and "trust that not all the third parties that checked the code are co-conspirators".
> That was the upthread claim.
Yes, but I'm not making that claim, and I think your statement saying this piece is "useless in isolation" is overly dismissive.
It blows my mind how so many people proliferate how useful blockchain companies can be yet despite all of the different blockchains, ICO's..., practically none  have taken off because they are technologically and economically worse than current market products and services.
: Illegal markets are the only market I have seen that do like it because companies/governments have specifically made it harder for illegal transactions to take place over traditional currencies.
How you take funds for your campaign is configurable. The projects which took USD raised millions more than the projects which took various cryptocurrencies at the time of funding. The upside of having a smart contract 'guarantee' your funds was outweighed by the downside of drop-off in getting your potential customers to acquire and pay you using an obscure financial instrument.
This looks to be changing.
All blockchains rely on re-computing the same transaction across many different entities due to mistrust. However, despite the common sentiment that computers are cheap; at scale, the are definitely not. Every additional computation to validate something increases the cost of business and 99% of businesses are cutthroat when it comes to cost.
Add in the other downsides/costs of crypto.* (my insights on the downsides of blockchain specifically: hard to use, one way transactions, high transfer costs due to low block size, super easy to get hacked and lose all your money...) and it's no wonder they are all failing.
99.999% of the time, the costs outway the benefits.
User acquisition is critical in the success of marketplaces. Usability is often ignored too.
Even today, if you create an eBay (granted, a much stickier marketplace than Kickstarter) with no fees, it's not as simple as throwing the doors open and expecting everyone to switch.
You can read more here, in a different example I dig into (Slack vs IRC): https://www.nemil.com/musings/oss-and-slack.html
If you ever want, I'm happy to have the debate with you (email in profile). If you really want to compete, you're going to need to be aware of what it'll really take to win, not just decentralized/blockchain and no fees.
(And as a nit, I can also build a website in a week that takes 2% credit card vig without blockchain - sure I know you'll argue that I can raise the price later, but I'm still not going to win against Kickstarter without something more than just a cheaper price)
I'm sceptical about the use-case. Collecting money for the projects is so much about other things as well, not just the money collection phase - you need a services around it, it is not just the payment collection. That said, I think it would be quite useful for kickstarter to accept btc/eth.
No, it can't.
> If total ETH sent to contract address by date X > Amount Y then send the ETH to the fundraiser, else return the ETH.
Somehow missing the tracking of backers and rewards, the mutual identification of the parties, and the enforceable obligations with regard to rewards. Kinda key features of Kickstarter.
How can you replace kickstarter with a few lines of code? Through your wonderful imagination that can bend reality? Or through your convincing argument that kickerstarter volunteered to turn itself into a few lines of code.
But there is a reason people don't do that, something to do with the value centralized platforms provide.
Plus I'm not entirely sure anyone should trust smart contracts to actually perform such a function, next thing you know someone other than the project created takes all the funds pursuant to the smart contract, but hey that's the beauty of a smart contract it's infallible, so what ever it does it was intended to do, be damned with what people thought and understood it would do.
It wasn't very popular or very user friendly, I think the development stopped one year ago
But hey, check out my ICO - we have a "whitepaper"!
By who? I'm not aware of any major developers suggesting this. As far as I can tell this is just a strawman promoted on HN. The Dao was a single instantiation of this sort of idea promoted by a small number of non-core developers - it doesn't define the idea of smart contracts.
As Matt Levine from Bloomberg put it:"My immutable unforgeable cryptographically secure blockchain record proving that I have 10,000 pounds of aluminum in a warehouse is not much use to a bank if I then smuggle the aluminum out of the warehouse through the back door."
Technology and business journalists writing about non-
cryptocurrency use cases for smart contracts never seem to mention that their "trustless" system will still involve trusting humans wherever it touches the physical world. You may have a tamperproof system for running contract code, but the inputs have to come from outside this secure space.
Disclaimer: I know almost nothing about commodities markets.
The point is that the blockchain makes little difference to a third party's ability to not honour most real goods and services contracts, and ascribing too much authority to its records can even reinforce their lie about paying you, because that's what the tamper proof record of the aluminium-filled warehouse says they did.
I see all of these "prediction markets" and "gambling platforms" being launched and claiming that they are "fully autonomous".
Well where do they get the outcome information from? It must be from a person.
You cannot program a smart contract to know who has the most reliable sports scores or political information. AI does not exist yet.
If I bet that Hillary Clinton won the election, and she lost to Trump, what's stopping a hoard of Clinton supporters from voting (or tweeting or however the DAO collects their "data") that Clinton actually won the election and stealing my winnings?
But, for sports scores the contract could be coded to check all three of espn.com, nfl.com and abcsports.com (just for example).
Same with the election results: usa.gov, cnn.com, foxnews.com, bbcnews.com
You make a valid point I think, but the examples you gave are pretty trivial. More complex ones are another matter.
The only known solution for these problems is to have an oracle inject the necessary "knowledge" into the blockchain itself and then have the smart contract code work with this data, that is then stored on the chain forever and thus makes everything deterministic again. But the oracles come with their own sets of problems, like them just being another "trust anchor" (and they're one that you can't validate the code of, since the oracles themselves by definition have to reside outside of the blockchain, it's just the data that ends up within it) or the giant pollution of the blockchain with data that they cause.
Even these very simple examples don't pass the reality check on close inspection.
I don't think your argument applies any differently to other cryptography, it all looks like jumping through hoops for no guaranteed safety. If you believe that the only thing that matters is 100% safety then you are going to be very disappointed with computer security in general.
You can't do that as a human, either. All you can really do is look at someone's record to see how their predictions have panned out historically. Given the right data sources, a program could do this no problem, and assign metrics to individual sports commentators as well as subsets of their consensus on any particular topic.
Given the nerdy propensity of the fantasy sports guys, there's no reason to assume this kind of data won't be available eventually.
As for politics, I'll agree with you there - neither human nor AI is going to be able to produce particularly reliable commentary any time soon!
> If I bet that Hillary Clinton won the election, and she lost to Trump, what's stopping a hoard of Clinton supporters from voting (or tweeting or however the DAO collects their "data") that Clinton actually won the election and stealing my winnings?
This is called a 'coup' when it happens IRL, and happen it does. The chief difference here is that in reality, pitchforks and torches are needed for these efforts; online it's a little bit physically safer.
People have no problem verifying the bet results of yesterday's game or last year's elections. However, making a blockchain that can't possibly be manipulated into thinking that Clinton won the election (no pitchforks needed, you're misleading a single automated system, not everyone else) is actually much harder than it seems - especially if the decisions are enforced by the system, final and irreversible and can't be overruled by courts if it's found to be fraudulent afterwards.
This is where people are betting to take a risk that the law will change to legalize and maybe even incorporate these contracts. Take a prenuptial agreement for example. Instead of having a lawyer, a smart contract could automatically split ether from an account into two addresses.
But yes, young families should convert all their assets to ETH and tie it up in their prenuptial smart contract until they divorce because lawyers suck.
But assuming the smart contract will actually split the amounts equally...how does the smart contract know when the parties marriage is dissolved? And money isn't the only thing involved in marriage, sometimes there are children, does the smart contract automatically split the children in half too or do we have to turn to the lawyers still?
Ignoring the oracle problem, all this would take to work is the couple storing all their wealth in an asset that has an unknown (possibly negative) rate of return and unknown (possibly very low) liquidity.
Which would replace a prenup only with an oracle for the conditions (which can be more complicated than just divorce, but even divorce is an off-chain event requiring an oracle) and, even then, only if ETH were the only assets owned by the couple.
The benefit over a regular database is that everyone gets to see what the data and stored procedures are, so you don't have to take someone elses word for that part.
Also, there's a built-in payment system, which is handy sometimes.
It doesn't solve interacting with the rest of the world, you still need an external system for that, just like with most databases.
The other market that intrigues me is autonomous AIs. I can imagine an AI that can more easily trust a smart contract than a human institution.
Essentially, you are right, but you're biased because you feel good in your network of human trust. Replacing that world with machines doesn't buy you anything because you'll still want to keep your human layer as the bottom line. But not everyone is so nestled in the bosom of modernity.
Also consider scale. Banks won't loan you $1000. It's not worth the time to do the math, and find an appraiser. But a crypto contract can do the math for free, and a network of appraisers would contain someone who can do really fast work on a tight schedule. Like, "show up at Highland Mall on Saturday afternoon, I will appraise 50 businesses in 3 hours".
That business model only works if you have infrastructure that takes care of everything else than the appraising, with much richer modeling than even banks use today.
Even it smart contracts on ethereum are used for nothing other than the facilitation crowdfunding coin offerings, it would still have "shebang".
People buy into these ICOs because they get tokens that they assume to increase in value. It's basically a "get rich quick" scheme. It worked an astounding number of times, and once people caught up on that, the value of Ether started to skyrocket as everyone and their grandmothers wanted to have a piece of the cake.
Why did the tokens increase in value? Because enough people believed in the "visions" of the startups behind the ICOs, which usually weave some story about future utility of the specific token into their business case precisely to make people think that these tokens will one day be more than just a speculation object. Once enough people believed that, the tokens became extremely good speculation objects, as they were growing in value, and that made people get rich quick, which made Ether skyrocket, which made more people get rich quick. See last paragraph. But the important takeaway is: you need that perceived utility value to kickstart this entire sequence of events!
Okay, so why are the tokens supposed to have any utility value besides being speculation objects? Because the startups have business models centered around Ethereum and smart contracts and of course utilizing their token that they intend to grow into a real business. If you now assume - just as you yourself have stipulated - that smart contracts on Ethereum are used for nothing other than the facilitation of crowdfunding coin offerings, this means that any other business model is assumed to fail. This in turn means that all those tokens have no utility value whatsoever. This in turn means that they eventually lose their speculative value, which is based on people believing in them one day having utility value. It will probably take a while, since beliefs can be strong and masses of people tend to be dumb, but eventually it will happen. This in turn means that crowdsourcing yet another useless and worthless token won't work, since why should anybody invest anything into it? And this finally ruins the nice killer application of crowdfunding via ICOs.
Think of a blockchain a OSS Visa like payment network where you and anyone else can build their own apps, be it something as trivial as a multi-sig or a token exchange, for instance. From this angle, I think it makes more sense to investigate Ethereum and smart contracts in general.
Regarding accessing external data, that is done via oracles and is a well researched topic with some notable implementations (Oraclize, Town Crier, etc), but I'd venture that the most common way to integrate a web3 with web2 is and will be at a middleware level, not directly on a smart contract.
They make up a big part of many corporations that costs much money but doesn't bring any benefits to the products.
They do work that I'd deem difficult, but that would also lend itself to automation with smart contracts very well.
I feel like this song and dance precedes all major shifts in technology.
This seems to be the direction that blockchain and smart contract tech needs to go if it aims to be scalable. Conduct the vast majority of your business off-chain, and resort to the blockchain in the event of a dispute.
Kind of like how two parties in a business relationship will generally act on good faith, but may choose the nuclear option of legally enforcing a contract if the relationship sours.
Imagine a 10,000-node network, where each node has to handle 1 billion messages per second. Firstly, if we assume a single VM can handle 1 million messages per second, it would require that each node rent ~1000 VMs (for a total of 10 million VMs for the entire P2P network), which they obviously can’t do without compensation. And if you introduce compensation, you need to pay the same fee to each node, which makes it inherently 10,000 times as expensive as a centralized network.
So the question is not whether it’s possible, the question is whether it’s worth it: in how many cases would a user prefer a system that’s 10,000 times cheaper, albeit requiring some trust?
Merchants all over the world are willing to accept VISA credit in exchange for goods and services, but they could — in theory — demand trustless payments in the form of international bank transfers, which are less than 10,000 times as expensive as a VISA transaction.
Today even timestamping is expensive in decentralized world. Plasma actually allows you to do that cheaply.
The cost of transactions on a Lightning Network has yet to be determined, because no working LN (with merchants accepting payments) exists yet. We all agree than LN is pretty fast, but the ultimate test is cost per transaction.
Allow me to remind you that if you want to send 1 BTC through 10 LN nodes, each of these 10 LN nodes need to bind 1 BTC in a payment channel (totaling 10 BTC in capital costs to transfer 1 BTC). And if just a single of these channels/hops are exhausted, and thus need to touch the blockchain, the LN payment is no cheaper than an on-blockchain one.
Think that in a LN-node the profit will be proportional to capacity of open channels, so its very probable that we will see very-big-BTC-LN-nodes appear to serve demand
The reputation of LN-nodes will play a very important to the users (as it already happens with BTC exchanges - do you use a unknown-fishy-exchange or do you use a big-known-stable-exchange ?), and so that will incentivize LN-nodes to avoid/solve problems with channels to avoid teardown-to-the-blockchain (which as you mentioned, is abnoxious to the user for its fee and lock-time)
How will the on-blockchain settlement transaction look like? It needs to redeem all 1,000 outputs provided by the payers, because each payer creates a new output when it funds a channel, which creates a huge settlement transaction (1,000 inputs) with a correspondingly huge fee.
How does LN get around this issue?
What is the use of the hub? You can just connect the merchant directly, even if you are just an occasional customer. You don't need the entire blockchain to use LN, so more users will be running Lightning nodes than Bitcoin nodes.
If you have an intermediary node (you call it a hub), there is no requirement for it to close its channel with the merchant, once you close your channel with that intermediary node.
Credits: Yoghurt on Bitcoin Core Slack
As far as I can see, merchants receiving payments over payment channels is unrealistic, because it requires:
1) the merchant to predict what its revenue will be this week/month
2) the merchant (or someone else) to lock up this entire amount for the revenue period (week/month)
So, if a merchant wants to receive payments over a payment channel, the effective supply of BTC is halved, because 1 BTC needs to be deposited in the merchant’s payment channel for every 1 BTC a customer sends.
Most merchants simply don’t have that kind of capital and, even if they did, they wouldn’t be able to compete on price with other merchants who don’t demand trustless payments (merchants receiving payments over payment channels need to adjust their prices to account for the fact that they need to borrow a week/month’s worth of revenue, and have it sit idle in a payment channel). It’s very poor use of a scarce resource (bitcoins).
If we shard the data, such that each node only needs to process 10 transactions per second — while trusting the remaining nodes on the other 990 transactions — how is this different from just reducing the number of nodes to 10, and having each node process all 1,000 transactions?
In both cases the entire network only needs to process 10,000 transactions per second, and in both cases the network breaks down if 10 or more nodes collude.
Looking forward to seeing results
Vitalik has created Ethereum of course, and he's not asking for investment, so this is better than your garden variety ICO scam. But right now this is more of a wishlist of desired features than a roadmap to implementation.
Given: "Draft is in-progress and may be frequently updated in the next week(s)." I'll give them the benefit of the doubt, and just look forward to it getting more specific.
Also, on bitcointalk it seems all you need is a whitepaper and a great(!) team (of 1 developer and hundred marketing strategists, financial directors and whatnot.)
- Medieval barber, Theodoric of York
And so it is with bitcoin, Ethereum, etc. The idea is that some particular thing that happened (“X paid Y such-and-such” or whatever) is shared and recorded in so many places that there can’t be any doubt about it. Yes, it’s in principle possible that all the few thousand places that actually participate in something like bitcoin today could collude to give a fake result. But the idea is that it’s like with gas molecules in a room: the probability is inconceivably small. (As it happens, my Principle of Computational Equivalence suggests that there’s more than an analogy with the gas molecules, and that actually the underlying principles at work are basically exactly the same. And, yes, there are lots of interesting technical details about the operation of distributed blockchain ledgers, distributed consensus protocols, etc., but I’m not going to get into them here.)
It’s popular these days to talk about “smart contracts”. When I’ve been talking about “computational contracts” I mean contracts that can be expressed computationally. But by “smart contracts” people usually mean contracts that can both be expressed computationally and execute automatically. Most often the idea is to set up a smart contract in a distributed computation environment like Ethereum, and then to have the code in the contract evaluate based on inputs from the computation environment.
Sometimes the input is intrinsic—like the passage of time (who could possibly tamper with the clock of the whole internet?), or physically generated random numbers. And in cases like this, one has fairly pure smart contracts, say for paying subscriptions, or for running distributed lotteries.
But more often there has to be some input from the outside—from something that happens in the world. Sometimes one just needs public information: the price of a stock, the temperature at a weather station, or a seismic event like a nuclear explosion. But somehow the smart contract needs access to an “oracle” that can give it this information. And conveniently enough, there is one good such oracle available in the world: Wolfram|Alpha. And indeed Wolfram|Alpha is becoming widely used as an oracle for smart contracts. (Yes, our general public terms of service say you currently just shouldn’t rely on Wolfram|Alpha for anything you consider critical—though hopefully soon those terms of service will get more sophisticated, and computational.)
But what about non-public information from the outside world? The current thinking for smart contracts tends to be that one has to get humans in the loop to verify the information: that in effect one has to have a jury (or a democracy) to decide whether something is true. But is that really the best one can do? I tend to suspect there’s another path, that’s like using machine learning to inject human-like judgment into things. Yes, one can use people, with all their inscrutable and hard-to-systematically-influence behavior. But what if one replaces those people in effect by AIs—or even a collection of today’s machine-learning systems?
One can think of a machine-learning system as being a bit like a cryptosystem. To attack it and spoof its input one has to do something like inverting how it works. Well, given a single machine-learning system there’s a certain effort needed to achieve this. But if one has a whole collection of sufficiently independent systems, the effort goes up. It won’t be good enough just to change a few parameters in the system. But if one just goes out into the computational universe and picks systems at random then I think one can expect to have the same kind of independence as by having different people. (To be fair, I don’t yet quite know how to apply the mining of the computational universe that I’ve done for programs like cellular automata to the case of systems like neural nets.)
There’s another point as well: if one has a sufficiently dense net of sensors in the world, then it becomes increasingly easy to be sure about what’s happened. If there’s just one motion sensor in a room, it might be easy to cover it. And maybe even if there are several sensors, it’s still possible to avoid them, Mission Impossible-style. But if there are enough sensors, then by synthesizing information from them one can inevitably build up an understanding of what actually happened. In effect, one has a model of how the world works, and with enough sensors one can validate that the model is correct.
It’s not surprising, but it always helps to have redundancy. More nodes to ensure the computation isn’t tampered with. More machine-learning algorithms to make sure they aren’t spoofed. More sensors to make sure they’re not fooled. But in the end, there has to be something that says what should happen—what the contract is. And the contract has to be expressed in some language in which there are definite concepts. So somehow from the various redundant systems one has in the world, one has to make a definite conclusion—one has to turn the world into something symbolic, on which the contract can operate.
The point is always "make it hard so it will be too expensive to crack it". but what if some country (or group of countries) really try to temper with the clock of the internet?
Are we sure the won't succed and make all of us use it?
If consensus is only established by powerful AIs, the ones with the most powerful AIs are creating the truth.
If there's one thing I really hate about all this machine-learning/AI scene it is this "Have a seemingly unsolvable problem? Don't worry, just let an AI that you don't understand and can't debug fix it for you!" silver-bullet mentality.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14976350 and marked it off-topic.
Maybe we could come up with a "HN law of crypto" that states all articles must be met with "paper money works just fine" or "just another tulip scheme".
It seems asking for constructive criticism is out of the question due to the ideological motivations behind the criticisms.
Also, crypto skeptics realise that the crypto fans literally have money at stake so they are not unbiased. Maybe crypto skeptics are also a bit worried that perhaps there is something they didn't get. Perhaps they miss out on the next big thing.
That - IMO - is what "crypto skeptics" are actually skeptical of.
 See also the "put voting on the blockchain and give everybody an identifying number to verify their vote" people who seem to have absolutely no idea why we have a secret ballot.
No it wouldn't
> I guess that's why some people get rich and others sit on their hands and complain.
I honestly don't know what your point is. There's a lot to criticize in the crypto space right now. There's also a lot of money to be made. Those aren't in any way mutually exclusive.
I think you do. It was the sentence before the one you quoted
Ok. That's a bit contrived but is easy enough to agree with.
> I think you do.
Are we aggressively agreeing?
It's Econ 101 they don't get. It's the origin of money they don't get. With every tulip argument it becomes painfully obvious that "progressives" are economically illiterate. They talk about supply and demand they way conservatives talk about global warming being "only a theory". This Cryptophobia (let the record show I coined the term :P ) is not technologically rooted.
The only thing I want is for productive conversation to occur - but from a technical aspect. Maybe there could be a tab where people argue from an ideological perspective. But the reason I'm frustrated is that literally every crypto thread has the same comments.
Let's just all admit we're not going to convert anyone, and if you don't have constructive inputs to the technology then reconsider commenting.
With the way technology is going it would seem everything would be connected to the web and this idea of decentralized apps that require crypto, I'd like to be in on that... the "millionaires" that came about from bitcoin, that's nice but are you saying the tulip scheme is going to be the end result of crypto?
I'm asking because I don't know. I'm buying it solely for FOMO
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14977061 and marked it off-topic.