Alright which one of you wrote this
Posted Sep 27, 2022, 3:58 AM UTC
24924
Generally I’ve found if you can’t explain something in a couple simple sentences, you don’t actually understand it.
Unless you’re working in theoretical physics or something maybe but anything we’re dealing with in most cases wouldn’t be in that space.
29
Ackshually, good old Dicky Feynman managed to do just that with theoretical physics.
13
„Shut up and calculate!“
2
Plz fix by EOD
25
I might be dumb but everyone who has tried to explain bitcoin / blockchain to me has just further convinced me that the tech does not exist.
It’s the equivalent of saying carbon emissions are not a problem because carbon capture that allows us to regulate the atmosphere is “just around the corner”.
25
The tech does exist, it just doesn’t meaningfully improve on existing tech except for the use case of buying illegal stuff online. Freakonomics did two podcasts talking to big names in the crypto space, and not a single one could articulate an actual use case where it would make a real difference.
28
That’s the way I see it too. I just don’t realistically understand what benefit having cryptocurrency presents. Universal adoption to avoid taxes would get cracked down upon, it’s no more convenient than the existing E-pay, and it is way more volatile than other standard currencies.
10
Just did a report recently on Web3. As I see it, there are a few very specific blockchain use cases that seem to work well (Walmart blockchain). And the overall idea of giving power to the people is nice, but so much of it is fugazi
5
Fugazi fugaze, you know what fugazi is? It’s bullshit kid, that’s what it is.
2
The blockchain is more than currencies.
1
Yeah if I’m being honest at all I just don’t understand any of it. I will watch a one hour YouTube video of someone explaining how “it is disrupting everything” and there is a new world order and stuff, but by end of the video still have no idea what it is
4
a fellow chad freakonomics enjoyer
8
Indeed. To paraphrase previous comments on this: blockchain provides trustlessness at high operational cost. Does modern capitalist society have any business cases where trustlessness offers a competitive advantage?
I've yet to hear anyone even try to answer that.
2
Reduced reliance on trust? Definitely, counterparty risk is a thing. Complete trustlessness? Probably not a business case, but who said everything needs to be a business case? People being able to do digital value transfers without relying on trusted third parties is a huge deals. Think people prosecuted by autocratic regimes.
2
Refer to the "modern capitalist" part of my comment I guess.
The oppressed masses argument is a popular ethical one but sort of ignores the fact it can never be a primary driver any any network built from it is bound by definition to fail. So these chains end up relying on the investment/FOMO crowd alongside nefarious actors to remain afloat.
Either way, we're getting offtrack. This isn't about crypto but about other value-adding applications for blockchain technology. Which don't exist.
1
International remittance is a big one.
1
That’s a pretty big usecase, but anyway:
- Allowing anonymous digital payments (just for privacy’s sake, you know)
- Complementing and replacing analogue processes in banking and administration (imagine the 3 day settlement period for stock trades vanishing)
- Decentralized (i.e. uncensored) hosting
- Stock exchanges without centralized market makers
- Removing or reducing the reliance on trust in situations with counterparty risk (see stock trade settlement period)
0
Every time I talk to a crypto bro I'm more convinced its just a huge Ponzi scheme
2
The stuff they tell is more well done by PolyPoly without blockchain, the latter not being able to solve trusted computing issues.
2
[deleted]
1
Most helpful blockchain SME
1
A consultant would know to write PowerPoint. One word. However to declare that you need a deck to describe it.....
Clearly just an
expiredexperienced industry hire.