Hacker News Reader

Comment by upsidesinclude | Hacker News Reader

What a waste of time to read.

Blogger randomly selects other bloggers garbage article to hand select a comprehensive list of projects no one has ever heard of and rightly bashes them. Of course, ostensibly this is representative of all projects (even those that actually have a following)

Beyond a bore.

A ledger is the oldest (Sumer) recorded instrument used in organized society. We now have an immutable ledger that requires zero intermediaries.

How is it possible for people to fail in understanding that value?

Can anyone speak to the timeframe after 99-00 implosion of the internet when people finally stopped claiming it was a sham?

I just want to know when to expect this kind of boring shortsightedness to taper off

View on HN

> We now have an immutable ledger that requires zero intermediaries. > How is it possible for people to fail in understanding that value?

Because so far nobody has shown me a way in which an immutable ledger can let me do something desirable that I can't already do, or transform a thing I currently do into a more desirable version of it.

Eh, false.

The point is that you cannot do those things without an intermediary. That's it. That's the difference. I'm showing you.

Try, really think, to see yourself in another country, one where the currency isn't guaranteed.

How about having your home shelled after you have been evacuated? You have a safe deposit box? Not any more, confiscated.

There are countries around the world where people lack basic security. They cannot store wealth.

It's not just about the first world

I feel like this is often how these discussions go - crypto maximalists say this is going to change the world and take over all sorts of things, someone suggests that it actually wouldn't make any difference for most things, and they say "aha but people in crappy regimes can use it to hide money".

Like, sure, that's a use case, but if that's the best we've gotten so far, I'm fine with continuing to think that this isn't as universally beneficial as the Internet was.

I would say, like, you lack empathy.

It isn't a "use case". Don't you see that?

>universally beneficial...

Of course it isn't! The ones that benefit the most are the ones that currently don't have security in part or due to their own government. That could also one day be your government.

Moreover, I certainly never made any statement about changing the world.

Not only that, you have ignored my previous point and deflected from it by assuming some new argument...

ftw!

Sounds like you aren't interested in merits.

My hope is that it will reduce corruption. If the society is forced to play by publicly known and mathematically enforced rules there will be less room for shady backroom deals.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com