Comment by RoboTeddy | Hacker News Reader

Comment by RoboTeddy | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Early blockchains have also solved the problems they were designed to solve. For example:

- Bitcoin offers a transferrable store of value which cannot be inflated by governments,

- Stablecoins, thanks to being cross-border, are often used in e.g. Argentina where the local currency is unstable and it's not legal to buy dollars,

- Proof of Humanity + universal basic income has provided extra income to Argentinian people (e.g. heard of someone who was able to purchase a ticket to visit their family for Christmas thanks to crypto UBI),

- Crypto has been used to send remittances to economically unstable places (Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela)

- Gitcoin has provided public goods funding and advanced our conception of mechanism design,

- Helium has created a new 5G network that people can actually roam onto,

- NFTs have provided a new funding model for artists (who create public goods),

- Zcash and Monero have allowed for fully private digital transfers,

- Dark Forest (https://zkga.me/) has been an amusing game,

- Snapshot has helped create a delegative voting system that governs a $3B treasury,

These might not be problems that you face or believe are important, but all these are examples of intended problems being solved.

P.S. the tone of your comment made me a little sad :(

So, the thing is, all of these things fall into two categories.

Either purely technical solutions, or previously solved problems.

For example, IoT scale global 5G networks you can roan into? That's a solved issue already. Same for programming bounties, proof of humanity, UBI, transferrable assets (though Bitcoin is in some ways more transferable) etc...

Others are fully technical problems, like fully private digital transfers.

Others yet are pretty much just temporary workaround. The fact that you can send remittances to Lebanon or Venezuela was never inherently problematic because of the instability of their currency, rather, it's because the government (in some cases other governments) decided to make it more difficult.

If a government wanted to, they could make sending remittances via crypto just as difficult as by any other way.

NFTs as a funding model is not inherently different from the existing comission and copyright system. What NFTs brought was hype, which made people who wouldn't previously comission artwork to now do so. Attesting ownership or transfering ownership of a piece of art with a contemporary author is not more difficult without than with NFTs. Especially because you still need to trust whoever minted the NFT.

There are few, actual, real world problems that have been solved by Web3 tech. I wish it wasn't the case, but it's true.

The fundamental issue is that Web3 tech can't fully replace centralised institutions. So we need to build centralised institutions anyways. If those fail, it can provide some palliation, as long as they don't fail so hard the government tries to fight it. So in the end, it doesn't truly solve any problem in the real world, though it can in some situations act as a Bandaid.

However, a useful bandaid does show that early blockchain is useful, just as "Early computers solved problems they were designed to solve".

Lebanaon, Turkey and Venezuela are very much part of the real world!

Sure, its useful, but that's temporary. There is no actual fundamental difference between sending crypto and sending fiat to Lebanon, Turkey or Venezuela, it's just a temporary workaround.

> - Crypto has been used to send remittances to economically unstable places (Lebanon, Turkey, Venezuela)

This would be cheaper if you didn't use the crypto part. The reason people use crypto is just that the governments have not yet noticed they're running an illegal money transmitter.

Sure, S3 is also cheaper than torrents. And HTTP/Telnet is cheaper than HTTPS/SSH. But some people do see value in math-based guarantees over those given by governments and courts. And others don't. We need both approaches to keep each other in check.

>S3 is also cheaper than torrents

On what formula? Because if I have a 500 MB video file and I want to distribute to some tens of maybe even hundreds of people, I don't see S3 being cheaper. Just sending out 500 MB from S3 to the Internet 10 times costs between $0.25 and $0.45.

There's a reason why I didn't touch S3 when I had to transfer up to 1 TB of video content per day to clients.

"Cheaper" for a use-case like hosting static assets for your website/webapp. Torrents have high overhead which only becomes justifiable for big files and high latency being acceptable.

Isn’t S3 actually expensive because cloud computing platforms charge so much for outbound bandwidth? That’s how they stop you from moving across providers.

> P.S. the tone of your comment made me a little sad :(

Good. You're trying to hock snake pyramid schemes and claiming it's a revolution. Blockchains are slow and expensive databases. That is it. They have no authority over anything so the only

Cryptocurrencies are burning through the power usage of a small country for bullshit. The worthless shit being "created" is fueled by breathless hype of hucksters looking for the next sucker to trade actual useful money for their Geoffrey dollars.

You're part of a giant scam, or multiple scams. You're listing a bunch of shit which has existing prosaic solutions. You think the blockchain solutions are new and innovative because you never looked into the issues before. Someone came up with a wasteful "solution", slapped the word blockchain on it, and you've uncritically accepted it as some super great thing.

Your comment broke the site guidelines egregiously. Attacking another user like this will get you banned here, regardless of how right you are or feel you are. Perhaps you don't feel you owe people you disagree with better, but you owe this community much better if you're participating in it.

You've also been posting in the flamewar style in other comments too. Please stop doing that. It's not what this site is for, and it poisons what it is for. We want thoughtful, curious conversation here—not people smiting enemies and bashing each other.

If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com