¹(whether Ethereum or something else)
> should only have a secondary-at-best interest in efficiency of a VM
Yup. Useful, global, and "efficiency is secondary-at-best". True builders, indeed.
But my point wasn't strictly about efficiency of the VM. And, as it always is with crypto-proponents, that point is completely lost, because I don't follow the right discords, sorry, magicians.
MY point in addressing your efficiency comment is:
1) at least know what you're talking about, regardless of where the heck read it, before writing tech off wholesale, and
2) stop taking weak, adjacent-to-point cultural potshots, because it distracts from your point, which I actually think has some merit.
I hate discord, and actively have avoided projects that use it, as well. There, I said it.
You want to argue that EVM is in any way shape or form efficient? There's a reason why storage or large contracts are prohibitevly expensive in it.
> stop taking weak, adjacent-to-point cultural potshots
No idea what you're talking about.
> I hate discord, and actively have avoided projects that use it, as well. There, I said it.
It doesn't matter whther you hated it or not. This statement, "It doesn't take belief if you spend any time observing these communities." is indistinguishable from "just follow the discords" which was (and probably still is) the standard response from crypto-proponents.
This is equivalent to "just sift through millions tons of shit before maybe finding something worth looking at (which invariably isn't worth looking at)".
Your link to show "a community of builders" is not much diferent: they invented a playground and are busy inventing ways to play in the playground (replete with a new jargon)". You still have to sift through millions tons of shit like people wanting to rename gas to mana or "standard to enable reacting to NFTs with emojis". Or people discovering reality and painfully re-inventing existing mechanisms like liens and or contracts forbidding re-selling of something.
There's probably something to look at, maybe, but the usefulness of that something will be questionable at best because it still runs in the same self-reinforcing loop of "we have this thing that we say is useful so anything we do in this thing is useful by extension" (both are statements that haven't been proven).
This is not "true builders". This is children playing with playdough and coming up with cute names for their playdough creations. And literally everything they do is only applicable to their playdough (because even their main plaything, NFTs, cannot be even store objects it references in the playdough, and needs to store it somewhere else, and has literally zero relationship to, say, real physical world).
Can also easily be said in a new conversation every year about new types of databases, frontend/other frameworks.
Just isn't a compelling or concise enough argument for me to forget about how helpful offline ZK-proofs will probably be for near-future real-world transactions, for example.
I a) should be said, b) is often said, and c) more often than not is
> Just isn't a compelling or concise enough argument for me
That is not the entirety of the argument. But in true crypto-proponent fashion you skip from context from context, from tangent to tangent hoping to forget and ignore the gist of what the conversation started with.
Even if I helpfully brought it back to original context: This is equivalent to "just sift through millions tons of shit before maybe finding something worth looking at (which invariably isn't worth looking at)".
> how helpful offline ZK-proofs will probably be for near-future real-world transactions, for example.
Yup. Exactly what I said. Of course the entire usefulness will lie squarely within the playdough, sorry, the blockchain, will have extremely limited applicability, will not be applicable to anything in real world (without significanly reducing real world problems to trivial applications), but will be marketed as the best thing since sliced bread.
You can bookmark this link and come back when this "near future" happens
I wish you hadn't spent so much time fighting a straw man in my place, we might have been able to talk any sort of tech.
"if", "sooner or later". Any ource of evidence for your wishful thinking?
> I wish you hadn't spent so much time fighting a straw man in my place
That's the problem with any crypto proponents: they have only demagoguery and wishful thinking instead of arguments. I literally started with skepticism that there are any people doing anything useful in crypto space.
Instead of "taking technology" you provided zilch (as I explained here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35505598).
Instead of "talking technology" you're saying "oh, there's absolute lack of any evidence, but I believe that FedNow will use ZK proofs" because if you believe strongly enough this will surely happen.
And so on. But sure, it's me who's fighting strawmen, and not crypto space profucing tons of bullshit.
I do not. Didn't say anything that be interpreted that way — only that you're missing some things.