Hacker News Reader

The commenter above was certainly familiar with BFT. It wasn't the term as such that was gibberish.

But rather, the implication you were attempting to make that this is a "critical innovation" that provides value.

What's gibberish about the implication? That's all a blockchain is. It takes cryptographic signatures (or more specifically, transactions that are cryptographically signed), and puts them in order.

As pointed out, the cryptography existed well before blockchain. My only point was that the fancy decentralized way it orders the transactions is the real innovation.

(edit: grammer)

It's gibberish because you don't justify why this innovation provides value.

Instead you just slather more fancy technical lingo on top.

It provides value to people who want to compute things on a public network that no single party controls. We can argue about whether or not that's a worthwhile thing for people to value until the cows come home, but I think it's beyond the scope of this conversation.

But point taken. I'll avoid using fancy technical lingo like "BFT" or "cryptographic" on hacker news any more.

Yeah, this "cryptographic" stuff is just way over our heads.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com