Why Zulip will not get on the blockchain bandwagon
blog.zulip.com
blog.zulip.com
And yet I still don't know a single high utility use case for the blockchain. People keep saying it's the future but I can't really figure out how regular banking, accounting, or general software applications can't do the same basic task as one on the blockchain - but quicker and at a lower cost.
For a moment, forget about the "so we can track things forever" and "not based on trust" - those are more ideological than anything. Why should I use the blockchain right now?
So reality is it’s mostly hype, but hype could turn into a long term value assignment. Or not.
There isn't.
I think a lot of people falsely think that Web3 is going to consume Web2 and everything will go on the blockchain and be decentralized.
It just won't... we will still have centralized products, much like we still have "read-only websites" but, we are going to see a large increase in decentralization.
I feel that we are the "early 1990's internet" stage of decentralization. There were (apparently) article after article, denouncing the internet as a fad, that it will be dead any day, just for <x>, just for <y>, "The internet is tearing apart the fabric of society"...
Decentralization, in my opinion, is an inevitability. If the human race becomes multi-planetary and space-faring, we will need to be able to run independent nodes of services while keeping individual nodes honest and accurate.
Do I believe BTC or ETH will be the winner? Probably not. But the huge explosion in decentralized tech and allowing technical individuals to sharpen their sticks for it will definitely lead the way for a better, healthier world. I believe the same for Hyperloop; it might fail but ultimately we will win because we have excited a huge number of people about high-speed travel along with having knowledge about what worked.
And the multi-planetary argument is just one argument. We are on the cusp of a huge upheaval in government and society imo. We are at all-time peak of distrust among individuals, corporations and the gov't. The only way forward is going to be trust-less systems where everyone can inspect why and how things are working.
I don't think that 2031 will look anything like 2021, just like 2011 didn't look like 2001.
The whole blockchain just seems so inefficient way of doing it. And with NFTs we aren't even putting data itself on the chain. Shouldn't whole point is that the data is there and will live forever on the chain, just latest node telling who owns it is updated as needed?
I agree there's a lot of distrust in society but maybe not all-time peak because to interact with so many moving parts in our complex environment today, I think we may be trusting of more things. But perhaps that's for another conversation.
The main thing I'm curious about is your statement that the only way forward is thru trust-less systems. I personally believe we could also try to increase trust in other people and institutions.
Why do you think the only way forward is thru trust-less systems?
<hand-wave-y weirdo ranting about social trust>
I don't think we _can_ restore trust as you suggested. I think that social media and the "modern internet" has broken humans. Humans, in my opinion, are incompatible with trust outside of a very small circle of people. So, we need to move to a system where no one trusts anyone or anything, data is either strictly controlled by an individual person (the biological person, not a corporation or any other legal funny business) or is freely open for everyone to see.
I think that Fake News is largely only able to propagate because there has been a failure in trust. It's not (entirely) an educational problem, it's a problem that the system is opaque, the participants are opaque and the distributed trust the world was built on no longer works because we are no longer dealing with a disconnected population that only build strong forms of trust within themselves across generations. We are still working on the assumption of trust or using biological signals to determine trustworthiness of a person or fact. That's _really_ bad when people don't know what or who to trust because society assumed implicit trust would work.
We have to move past a web of webs trust-wise where each web has only a few edges to other webs ("I trust this individual to speak for me") and move to a single web of each node (person) having to reach consensus with other nodes using transparent, consensus-reached facts.
I think we _could_ do make our gov't and officials completely transparent but that still relies on trust & honesty to report what's happening without bias (which, imo, isn't possible for humans).
</hand-wave-y weirdo ranting about social trust>
> Why do you think the only way forward is thru trust-less systems?
Trust is easily broken or exploited. We are better off if each node, either biological or not, determines from provable and transparent facts ("this was agreed upon by 51%+ of trusted nodes") rather than being expected to implicitly trust opaque facts ("trust us... the money is definitely there. ;)")
In this hypothetical, what if the 51% of 'trusted' nodes conspired to lie? Also, I'm confused how the nodes would be 'trusted' if the system were truly 'trustless'—trusted by whom?
Do you not think that we would have to trust things that we don't understand? Even if I had in front of me all the transparent data about how a SpaceX rocket worked, I wouldn't be able to tell if it were true without relying on someone else I trusted to have more knowledge.
> I think we _could_ do make our gov't and officials completely transparent
Maybe I just see it differently, if something is completely transparent and I have all of the knowledge (and understand it), I wouldn't define that as 'trust' but rather 'knowledge' or something alike. For me, 'trust' has an inherent uncertainty to it, a doubt, where I choose to believe in spite of that doubt.
I trust that this message arrives to you the way that I send it, because I trust that Firefox is not tweaking the input, I trust my ISP is not injecting/removing text that I send, I trust that HN is showing you what I typed, etc. I have some idea based on how you're replying that those things happened, and yet I'm still trusting that it will work each time I send something, despite having not much idea how it works at each level.
> I think that Fake News is largely only able to propagate because there has been a failure in trust.
I agree that many people are trusting certain people/institutions less than in the past. I disagree that opaqueness is causing distrust, as I again believe that there is little if no 'trust' when things are completely transparent and known.
<counter hand-wave-y weirdo ranting about social trust :-D>
Personally, I think this has more to do with the cause:
> Trust is easily broken or exploited.
I think many of us have felt betrayed, ignored, cheated, lied to, abandoned, etc. Things have happened to us that have hurt us and made us feel afraid that people don't really care about us or actively are trying to hurt us. I do think this part can be changed. I think we can get better at apologizing, at forgiving, at mending our relationships.
I say this because I don't think truth is that connected to trust. I think if you tell me the truth (let's say truth = >99% of people believe it's true, as 'objective truth' can be really hard to pin down), and yet I don't trust you, then it doesn't matter if you tell me the truth or not, I will believe it's a falsehood. Conversely, if you tell me a falsehood and yet I trust you, then it doesn't matter if you tell me a falsehood or not, I will believe it's the truth.
From this perspective, trust is less about an 'objective truth' and more about one's personal subjective experience, often colored by the emotions one experiences based on different stimuli.
</counter hand-wave-y weirdo ranting about social trust>
Yes, I believe is easily broken or exploited. Do you believe it cannot be rebuilt?
I think this is the most overlooked aspect of decentralization efforts. The conversation we've been having since the dawn of BTC quickly devolved into applying the legitimate criticisms of BTC specifically, to the concept of decentralization as a whole, instead of accepting that it was an experiment which proved "good enough" to scale without too much friction or technical failure.
The concept has already evolved substantially in the past decade, and these experiments will continue to inform how we handle decentralization when it finally becomes critical to societal function, which is inevitable for the reasons you mentioned and more.
It's true that those articles existed but I think there were two key differences: they were written by [generally] old people who weren't at all conversant with the technology and were recognized as such by many people at the time. It was widely recognized that the dotcom stocks were overheated and some of the companies had no chance but at the same time most people were buying PCs and internet connectivity because there were tons of things they _did_ want to do.
That situation is generally reversed today: the people who understand technology are highly skeptical and the people most bullish about cryptocurrency do not show much sign of understanding either the technology or the markets where they're looking for buyers.
The strongest parallel I see now are the cryptocurrency bulls sound exactly like this sales guy I knew 1999-2000 who was convinced that the primary reason to buy a stock was how much the share price was increasing. Sadly, he neglected to cash out before the crash and ended up substantially in the red.
Regarding decentralization, I think it's important to consider how the internet has become less decentralized over time. The situation in the 90s was far more distributed but the centralized solutions have won out in many spaces, and it's not just well-funded rent-seekers but also factors like cost, reliability, support, and often even performance. I'm philosophically inclined towards open standards and distributed protocols but I have to say the experience has generally not lived up to the dream.
At least I see a path for this to be true.
There is an interesting argument about micro-transactions. The practical challenge there is getting the price to be enough below the cost of credit card transactions to spur adoption, especially since the processors have plenty of margin to cut since their overhead is so much lower.
The bigger problem is one of market: beyond the questions about restricting sites to people affluent enough to pay for those micro transactions, it’s unclear how many people will actually pay as much as advertisers for most sites. This has been tried a number of times over the years but there have been relatively few successes.
I think urbit’s approach to spam makes sense. Non-zero cost IDs (cheap) in the form of NFTs that grant network access and a pseudonym. This makes spam no longer economical because spammers can be trivially blocked. Pseudonyms also accrue reputation.
It basically moves auth and network complexity into the OS layer under an abstraction which makes application deployment way simpler. No distinction between a user and a server also fix a lot of the other broken things that cause federated systems to centralize or end up DOA to be avoided.
In the ETH world, decentralized state and the ability to incentivize network nodes and development via tokens and programmatic money make it possible to push back against the things that advantage centralization.
The issue is the protocols have to be good enough to solve a lot of this stuff, the old web didn’t do this well for the reasons you suggest and administering Linux servers is way too hard.
I understand the dismissal of technical people because crypto is filled with know-nothing scammers and gamblers, but it’s worth taking a closer look. There’s lots of interesting stuff happening in the space. A lot of people dismissed the web in the 90s too. There can be a bubble and a crash, but still be underlying tech there that will have a big impact.
Yes, I always think of Google in that way. They just powered through the dot com crash by being really useful.
I'm sure there are examples of this in crypto.
You mean like serverless ?
Are we going back to 40s and world needing 4 computers?
(1) https://mobile.twitter.com/viksit/status/1450518759387582472
(2) https://mobile.twitter.com/viksit/status/1452687368511655936
Which might include good things (donation to your favorite whistleblower or buying weed or whatever) but definitely WILL include bad things — for example it is uniquely well-suited for paying ransoms, hence the ransomware explosion!
Again, this is the ONLY thing. It is horrendously bad in every way, there's just no other choice for this kind of usage.
... that are useless unless you can also buy something you need with the contents of your cryptowallet. Which is a big if, although clearly the answer is sometimes "yes".
Places with high inflation often have capital controls that make it illegal to hold foreign currency. You see your savings get cut in half every year and there's nothing you can do about it.
It would be great if there was a political solution where governments don't impose capital controls on their people. But in the mean time, crypto allows you options to hold a more stable currency (e.g. stable coin), or at least one that doesn't only go in one direction.
Web 1.0 - Permissioned Read-only
Web 2.0 - Permissioned Read & write
Web 3.0 - Permissionless Read, write & own
Seems one could (more easily) run unregulated lotteries, raffles, gambling, Ponzi schemes, money laundering, public securities, etc.
I don't mean to imply this is all because people want to do heavy criminal activity, some may just be trying to avoid the bureaucracy.
Regardless, I see it skirting laws just as Uber and AirBnB kinda did the same thing for taxi medallions and hotel regulation, respectively.
Blockchains don’t really let you do anything useful that you couldn’t do before. But they make some things much easier and more accessible, by a big enough margin that they unlock some kinds of broad experimentation that weren’t really feasible before.
Take what I assume will eventually be a category-defining use case, “Facebook, but owned and governed by its users.” With some imaginative lawyering, you could build that in a durable way today. But it would take capital and know-how most kids in dorm rooms don’t have access to. It’s like how the launch of AWS didn’t let you do anything that was _impossible_ to build with on-premise hardware, but it unlocked a lot of innovation anyway.
Right now Ethereum is a very shitty version of Lambda plus DynamoDB, but with some interesting primitives around payment, ownership, and governance baked in. I actually have very little faith in the Ethereum roadmap given some dabbling I did in it a few years ago, but there are competing protocols with much much better performance and developer ergonomics, so they’ll either catch up or get replaced like a bad operating system.
Whether or not that system could even function, it doesn’t sound like something many people would choose to pay for. It seems like it would be Usenet except far more expensive and slowed by the inability to function asynchronously.
As goods move around, if you receive a damaged or bad item, you have an immutable, easily accessible paper trail of claims that people have made about the good.
It solves the oracle problem by sidestepping it: what is on the blockchain isn't truth, but verifiable claims various people have made about the truth. Easily accessible for lawyers in resulting lawsuits.
It is also something that's actually very hard to solve with a traditional database in a centralized manner, because then you have to trust whoever runs the database to not falsify records.
It also doesn't suffer from a lot of issues that public blockchains like cryptocurrencies face, like limited transaction volume or warming the earth for mining.
There might be other reasons why it wouldn't work out, but it seems like an actual useful tool there.
https://certificate.transparency.dev/howctworks/
In your example, how do you handle updates when a certificate expires or needs to be revoked? The Yubikey won't have internet with that power budget, so you'll have to manually update it.
Whenever you update the Yubikey, just update it with a snapshot of whatever certificates you care about from a blockchain like the link above. The Yubikey itself doesn't have to be a fully-participating node.
I think that is a useful concept and that's not terribly far out of line with what I was proposing — the main idea was that the useful part is basically the chain of signatures for a transaction but that it's only worth so much infrastructure because so much of the system depends on real-world activity outside of it. If my driver signs receipt of your goods by having both of them wave a key over a phone, that is useful information but there's a cap on how much value you can see from it because it doesn't say whether those statements were honest. The types of blockchains proponents outline are too expensive for that but something like what CT does could be useful — the key part being that it's kept small, efficient, and allows offline operations to handle limited connectivity.
That sounds like a blockchain? In the same sense that a git repo is also a blockchain.
At any rate, from what I can tell from reading that page, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.
indeed, is that another word for "idle (unused and useless) all thinkable time"?
Or 'I can't think a usecase, but eternity may bring one along.'
Blockchain is solution to a problem that doesn't exist. It's more ideological than practical.
We've only gotten the first bitter taste of cryptocurrency-enabled scams like ransomware. The next wave of scams, enabled by apps like Venmo, Robinhood, and others that make it super easy for mainstream populations to hold crypto and transfer real money to random people, will be devastating.
The argument is that crypto allows criminals to get away therefore let's ban crypto. Well, the real world shows that criminals are equally allowed to get away by conventional payment systems.
I'm generally not in favour of banning crypto, but at least they'd have a point if the traditional banking system actually prevented financial crime. It clearly doesn't prevent it anywhere near enough. If anything, the complexity of using crypto for the average user means that a traditional payment system scam will yield more than a crypto scam.
Not only because they take a clear standpoint from the core principles that they have chosen. But especially that this proofs that the whole project shows to be resilient even when a lot of money is involved.
However, will this signal stand the test of time… my money is on, no.
strange question because obviously you should not shove every technology into every project. I think a lot of projects would be actually very well served by not jumping on the ML bandwagon and throwing significant resources at problems that can often be solved in simpler ways.
And not just for technical reasons but as Zulip has decided for ethical reasons. Just like crypto's mentioned impact on climate or lack of regulation ML often has negative impact on privacy, data ownership/collection, bias and so on.
I would very much be in favour of projects more strongly considering the negative impacts a technology choice can have.
Yeah, except you are specifically calling out why their "we refuse to do crypto" post is just a virtue signal and a stupid one at that.
Think of this way: If someone made a post saying their company refuses to use ML because Facebook has unethical machine-learning algorithms, they would get laughed to another planet.
It's a straw-man opinion. It would be a far more reasonable blog post if they had said: "We don't need a blockchain or crypto tie-in because that has nothing to do with the problem we are solving nor will it solve it better".
If they wanted to, they could do crypto and completely reject the current paradigm. They could easily create their own blockchain, create their own ecosystem in the hopes of changing the industry and status quo... or they could just not do anything because they aren't interested in crypto.
Instead they made a virtue signal post to get kudos and back pats from crypto FUDs for the fact of crypto FUD-ing rather than the fact it's a reasonable and sound technical decision.
Not to mention, typically when the accusation is leveled, no attention is given to which virtues are being signaled, and why such virtues are bad.
This is a common rhetorical trick and it's frustrating how often it works - rather than arguing the specifics of a situation (which the arguer finds difficult to justify) a more general, more vague, and more obfuscated point is argued instead.
See also the OP and "betting a project against a technology", as an accusation of close-mindedness, which is amusingly vague. The blog post makes a point against a specific technology and goes to lengths to describe its reasoning, but a murkier, more abstract argument is made instead to color the company as somehow luddite-like.
Some opinions are unpopular, others are expressed to enrich the conversation rather than the speaker. Neither is virtue signaling.
I've been in crypto since I was mining on Butterfly Labs hardware in 2013. It was a scam then and it's a scam now.
I only ever mined Alts, which from a maximalist perspective seems more like a scam. Of course, it’s just perspective. The only wrong ones are the eth maximalists. :-)
I agree, and it's pretty obvious from the tone of the article that they haven't quite done their research, either.
> However, will this signal stand the test of time… my money is on, no.
This is where I disagree though. I find it wildly hard to believe that there is a future for cryptocurrency beyond it's current value. It's value right now is predicated almost entirely on hype, a resource that is quickly starting to die out now that NFTs and cryptocurrency aren't rallying half as hard as they were last year or the year before. Maybe this comment won't stand the test of time either, but it would take a hell of a revelation to push further adoption of crypto and somehow further inflate it's value.
Many world currencies are pushing 20% (reported figures, so reality is much higher).
Btw Bitcoin was invented in 2008 with the explicit purpose of being an inflation hedge, cannot be debased.
It doesn't matter if there's no more block reward because the ledger still has to be "signed", and the tx fee is what will pay for the work.
Centralized SaaS apps optimized for ads that could be shutdown, sold to languish at salesforce, or have constant spam aren’t the best we can do.
Zulip is better than discord on the above metrics, but doesn’t solve all of them. I think what urbit is doing is cool and solves more. There are other web3 experiments going on that are cool too.
From the article:
>Because [BTC] transactions are anonymous and (generally) irreversible, crypto assets are also a prime target for thieves.
Unless you are talking about a privacy coin, most crypto is pseudononymous. A record of every transaction is kept in perpetuity and can later be linked to a given person by following the trail of records when someone in the chain eventually provides a service that has to implement KYC (Know Your Client) protocols (e.g. an exchange, a bank, or a typical e-commerce merchant).
This doesn’t have to exist for a given transaction. This bitcoin is effectively public for the vast majority of people and it is effectively anonymous for those who are highly motivated to remain so.
Even if the chain of transactions does not lead to a hard identity, the mere act of trading by public key is to transact pseudonymously. An anonymous transaction would have concealed senders and receivers.
So no, the two words are not interchangable.
All Zulip has to do is consult their own home page. There at the top in large font is this:
> Zulip combines the immediacy of real-time chat with an email threading model. With Zulip, you can catch up on important conversations while ignoring irrelevant ones.
Where in that statement does something like "crypto assets" management fit in? Exactly nowhere. Crypto assets are not conversations. Nor can they help anyone catch up on important conversations. The Zulip team will not degrade its efforts to focus teams on communication by distracting them with useless fluff they can get elsewhere. End of story.
There's no good reason why Zulip should have block chain integration.
I'm not sure if others have observed something similar. The anti-blockchain reasoning in this post seems well principled, but I also wonder if it's easier to get away with this position because not many zulip communities are asking for blockchain integration.
"We believe that doing so would inevitably compromise the integrity of our 100% free and open-source project." Most blockchains projects are fully 100% free and open-source projects, even more so than other domains in software. But uniquely, the data is 100% free and available too!
"Cryptocurrencies have a significant negative impact on the environment." That is a PoW-only concern, which is well-known and is being technically addressed by PoS. Also, mining for PoW currently uses excess electricity which is *wasted anyway*. At that rate, Google and Facebook use a lot of energy too: Who needs to see videos and chat online with friends when we should all read books instead?
"Today’s reality is that cryptocurrencies are enabling massive amounts of criminal behavior". Probably no more than regular dollars: Everything is visible on blockchains (except some specialized chains) and it is poor judgement from criminals to use them. They will get caught, more quickly. Bad state and financial actors can much more easily hide things in the current financial world... look at all the Panama Papers and other ICIJ leaks!
"The lack of effective regulation of crypto assets puts people at high risk". The current financial regulations are a joke: You can use leverage on RobinHood and lose money at this casino pretty quickly. They will also cheat on you: restricting you to sell or instead selling stock you own without your consent, selling your order flow so financial giants can make the best of you! If you naively believe regulations are here, we're protected, think again. Most fines set by the US administration are used as a political tool (for instance against the French bank BNP Paribas for doing business in Iran). That said, blockchains regulations will come as the sector matures, you can just hope that they will be written by people who understand the technology.
Edit: Since I'm being downvoted, please state why in a comment!
They have more than 6k issues on GitHub and not a single one mentions blockchain.
It seems more probable that they just wanted to piggy back on the Discord news.
- "Blockchain" != cryptocurrency (and using Bitcoin as the primary bogeyman is silly given no one is using Bitcoin assets to authenticate into Discord groups; Ethereum is quite public about their ultimate desire to move to PoS)
- Why note the "idealism" of folks in the space and then going on to completely ignoring the promise of web3?
- The fact that an open source communication tool by its nature is ripe for usage by "scammers" seems hypocritical. Will Zulip abandon the Apache license if crypto "scammers" start using it?
It's all pretty stupid.
Public blockchain basically means cryptocurrency-like things. It's all about transfers of value: whether it's coins, domain names or stupid cryptokitties — it's all about tradeable things, so it's all the same shit.
> Ethereum is quite public about their ultimate desire to move to PoS
Promises and desires do not matter. It could end up with them endlessly finding security issues with PoS and postponing the switch. And… surprise, the miners probably won't just stop mining! They'll switch to Ethereum Classic or fork again!
Most importantly, the shitcoin economy must be viewed as a whole. You cannot just view one coin in isolation and say "it's green because non-PoW". The value of that coin is all tied up in exchange with other coins!
This blog post prompted me to check it out again, but to my surprise, although my account is disabled they still kept my email in their database and they won't let me signup with the same email again.
Using the password reset option informs me that my account has been deactivated.
When I delete my private information I expect it to really get deleted.
>Cryptocurrencies have a significant negative impact on the environment
They go on to describe Proof Of Work systems, which are indeed detrimental, but don't even mention the push away from that platform. Fair enough, but it doesn't really make a solid argument when alternatives are available.
>Today’s reality is that cryptocurrencies are enabling massive amounts of criminal behavior
That could be said for 99% of computer software ever made. Criminals are going to use computers the same way we do, so using dumb words like 'enabling' completely miss the point. If anything, cryptocurrency has shown how arbitrary money really is in crime: as long as you exchange something of value, most criminals will be perfectly happy to continue their line of work.
>The lack of effective regulation of crypto assets puts people at high risk of being manipulated by scammers
This one I really don't get. Yes, cryptocurrency is a volatile market. It's mostly ruled by people who have no idea what they're buying in to, contributing to a massive bubble that's eventually going to pop. However, if you have a legitimate product that can actually be enhanced by the blockchain, why would that stop you? You don't need to follow in the exact footsteps of everyone else, that's the beauty of such an open-ended system.
Cryptocurrency, NFTs and all digital stores of value are a fad by design, but it sounds like the author of this article got sucked in by headlines and buzzwords. If the CEO can't put together a decent argument against the technology, it probably would have sufficed to just Tweet it or not offer any justification at all. I reckon the majority of people just outright don't care, and this only really serves to virtue signal into the "tech-bro" hate that has been spreading like wildfire across social media.
That sort of experience on any platform will leave a bad taste, and avoiding crypto for that reason make sense from a business perspective.
And online wallets/exchanges, I trust those even less than paypal... At least banks are regulated.
I'd like to see a few. We're not even seeing code signing of major software or Docker containers on a blockchain, which would actually be useful.
Building a chat app brings you pretty quickly into the digital identity and presence space. Regardless of getting involved with NFTs and ICOs and such, a wallet is a pretty adjacent concept to this domain. There's a reason a ton of chat apps currently offer some form of payments or payments integration. Venmo shows how hard it is to build "social" from payments, while the other direction is much easier to do because of network effects.
I wasn't going to jump on the blockchain bandwagon until I heard from Zulip. Glad they could clear up their position.
Technically right but distracting from the point that the most significant blockchain usage is PoW or some other methodology that massively wastes resources of some kind, such as Chia that wastes storage space for no good purpose.
Solar panels, for example, look a lot less eco-friendly when you realize their lifespans are about 20 years and our recycling solution is to... not recycle them. Not to mention precious metals like lithium are getting harder and harder to mine, meaning more and more emissions are required to acquire those materials in the first place. It's estimated that around 46% of an EV battery's carbon footprint is in the factory itself before it's even travelled a single mile. Which is part of why total lifetime GHG emissions for EVs are still around 65% that of gasoline powered cars.[0] and only 5% of lithium-ion batteries are recycled in the US (compared to 99% of lead-iron batteries).
Sorry I'm rambling. I think my point was that we need to think more about where the materials come from and what happens to them afterwards if we want a more complete picture of the environmental impacts of a technology
[0] https://theicct.org/publications/global-LCA-passenger-cars-j...
If PoS was winning why doesn't it control most of market cap?
We could do a whole lot better with our energy usage across the whole industry.
I don't see any 'whataboutism' with my statement.
Also get tired of the aspirational rants of how it is going to fix supply chains and offer banking to the underserved communities. And yes, I understand banking, supply chains, and crypto enough to know that that will never happen.
agreed. have you heard of hREA [1] and http://valueflo.ws, led by Bob and Lynn from http://mikorizal.org, and others? it's sort of an open source SAP alternative designed as local-first networked software. "Radically distributed supply chain systems". it uses the REA accounting method [2] to implement LETS and mutual credit type economic networks for cooperatives / small business ecosystems / commons based peer production / any transitional/solidarity economies.
Bonfire is also implementing the Valueflows vocabulary on ActivityPub [3].
[1] https://github.com/holo-rea/holo-rea
I think that there are many valid ways to improve business systems software, but that the current leaders are entrenched to a level that they won’t be replaced, similar to libre office not taking off regardless of its rich set of features. I am glad that open source databases have done well though.
I recall working at a large manufacturing warehouse that switched systems, 2 years into the schedule they had to continue to push out the changeover for a variety of issues.
Imagine if you could attach a number to a resource, like energy, that accounts for its various possible usages. If the resource becomes more available, this number will go down and if it becomes more scarce, the number would go up.
If you wanted to use the resource, you would have to pay this number. So naturally, you wouldn't pay to use the resource for something silly. Similarly, if it's important, you'd pay as much as you had to to use the resource. This would discourage people from using the resource foolishly.
The beautiful thing about this system is that you don't have to have moral judgements about what is or isn't worthy. It wouldn't be up to any one individual to say you should use resource for X and not Y. The number would be self adjusting as more or less resources become made available or more or less uses for the resources are discovered. And as the number went up, it would incentivize people to create more of that resource or create a resource to replace it.
If only such a number existed...
This is some praise the market reductive lunacy. Obviously energy production, pricing and consumption needs to be heavily regulated in any sensible society.
If that were the case, we'd have optimal formulas to allocate goods throughout the economy and market economics would be completely obsolete. Whatever your position on markets, the reason they exist is because we don't know how to most efficiently allocate goods a priori. Markets and prices offer us a mechanism, however imperfect and prone to externalities, to allocate resources efficiently. You'd also probably be able to solve the Knapsack problem and the Multi-Armed Bandit problem. I'd love something like this also, but I'm not holding my breath.
Secondly, the vast majority of the market cap is in crypto that isn't proof of work. So the first point doesn't even matter. Even bitcoin is moving towards a layer2 solution with the lightening network that means the settlement layer won't continue to put more pressure on needing more and more wasted energy.
(fwiw, I'm working towards getting solar on my house and mining with my excess electricity)
The whole point of blockchains is that everyone has a copy. I don't understand why you think they're migrating unless you don't want third-world countries using blockchains.
It has nothing to do with "want[ing] third-world countries using blockchains"
He means that more of the mining is taking place -due to natural market incentives- in 1st world countries. 1st world countries have "greener" energy production than not 1st world countries, so this is an environmental improvement
https://www.businessinsider.com/marc-andreessen-tells-us-why...
To the topic of Zulip, I find it funny they aren't on the crypto bandwagon but they are on the talking point bandwagon of crypto must be for criminals, anti-environmentalists, or scammers. Those are the only 3 points. Whew, you'd think it was 2010.
Is this not all of technology in entirety?
Huh?
* Bitcoin - still proof of work.
* Etherium - still proof of work, switching to proof of stake on January 1, 2020. Or maybe December 1, 2020. Or maybe some time in 2022.
I believe GP is correct that the majority market cap of crypto is more on PoS vs PoW, but I don't have a source readily available.
You only listed two coins, one you were wrong on as it's both PoS and PoW currently. Remember that most ETH competitors have billions in market cap and are pure PoS. Algorand, Cardano, Solana, Avalanche, Polkadot, etc.
Cryptocurrencies by market cap.[1]
There's Bitcoin, Etherium, and then there's everybody else. Binance and Tether are centrally issued. Solana, #5, is the largest proof of stake coin.
As someone watching the space since the beginning, imho, Ethereum has it in the bag.
Do you have zero doubt? Do you have a lot of doubt and speak so certainly to mask your own self-doubt? Do you have a lot of money riding on it being successful therefore afraid Ethereum won't solve the problem? Maybe none of those things or a combo?
I really really struggle to know why people speak about such things with near certainty and maybe you won't answer but I hope you do and help me see what may contribute to you expressing such certainty.
I have zero doubt. It's like debating if the sky is neon pink or blue. They're way ahead of everyone else.
Take just fees. https://cryptofees.info/history/2021-11-11. Ethereum is doing 77x Bitcoin, and that's excluding three other Ethereum projects ahead of Bitcoin.
I can express doubt about the success of something doing 2x of a market leader. I can't justify tempering my certainty when it's slaughtering its market peers.
I can agree that they might be ahead in their development of new ways to address energy challenges or gas challenges or other challenges compared to other platforms, yet still struggle to imagine you have no doubt. Maybe I just consider too many variables that could come into play, such as government regulation, chilling effects, global wars, deaths of leaders, etc., that could throw off the inevitability of something achieving something in the future. To be fair, those and other variables could make it even more likely that Ethereum or cryptocurrencies in general will solve those problems, I just don't see it as 100% yes or 100% no.
Maybe I'm just built different.
That being said, I didn't know that Ethereum had such a discrepancy in terms of fee transactions compared to BTC, so I'm grateful you pointed that out and I could learn more about that aspect—thank you.
At the same time, I see this overhyping hyperbolic forecasting in more and more things these days, especially when people are trying to convince other people to invest money, time, and/or other resources in their endeavor. I roll my eyes if I don't outright feel angry and disgusted, because the faux certainty often spreads to many people. I try to imagine why they may express 100% certainty of future events, and often struggle to do so.
Source? I haven’t added up the long tail but this seems dubious given the dominance of bitcoin/ethereum.
> Even bitcoin is moving towards a layer2 solution with the lightening network that means the settlement layer won't continue to put more pressure on needing more and more wasted energy.
Layer 2 doesn’t solve this. Only ~2% of the rewards that compensate miners come from transaction fees. At best, layer 2 could cut out that 2% of incentives.
I'm skeptical that such a calculation could even be meaningfully performed. The long tail of cryptocurrencies includes a great many whose volumes are so low that "market cap" becomes a nebulous concept.
Stop it. Hijack some other cause for your anti-crypto views. You don't get to make people feel good about emissions by writing anti crypto blog posts; you do it by actually advocating for lower emissions in activities that are in regular use that are _actually polluting_.
Someone is going to say something about incremental emissions reduction and to that I say, be my guest. The world is full of people selling magical products and ideas that claim to be green. The truth is, decreasing emissions is hard. Stop distracting people from the hard work needed to actually decrease emissions. If you want to help emissions out, go advocate for more buses and fewer automobiles in your community. Advocate for hydrogen subsidies for factories. Advocate for raising the gas tax. Advocate for tax rebates on weatherproofing houses. Advocate for heat pump installation. PoW cryptocurrencies are table stakes.
EDIT: The score on my post is fluctuating wildly and I'm flagged now lol. I've obviously touched a nerve here.
The shitcoin economy can only be viewed as a whole.
Your new "green" shitcoin will be exchanged with Bitcoin and other dominant coins that use PoW mining. Your shitcoin's value will be based on that.
Can we make a list of all the sectors that are consuming energy and determine which are providing the most benefit? Then we can focus on making reductions in the most harmful and the least important energy consumers.
Crypto is a big energy consumer, but I would prefer not to attack it just because it's new. It can provide some awesome things for humanity. I'd rather live in a world with crypto than one with massive military spending, for example.
No idea who Zulip are, nor why should I care what they won't do.