> This virtual machine defines operations (“op codes”) for managing keys, defining so-called "smart contracts" (computer programs), and performing both encrypted and unencrypted actions.
I suspected that was going to be in there
I suspected that was going to be in there
With the exception of the inefficiency of proof of work, nearly all the problems with cryptocurrency are human problems related to the toxicity of the ecosystem rather than intrinsic issues with the tech. Code doesn't scam people. People scam people.
And honestly, the vast majority of people on the "inside", i.e. those actually working with it, were opportunists as well. Most of them saw the tech narrowly as an unregulated financial instrument.
its like theres no amount of Adam Curtis documentaries that will shake silicon valley folks from the myth that the computer will lead to a better, more equal society.
you cant compute yourself out of a broken world.
Most certainly not, but surely you can build better tools with the aspiration of facilitating certain goals, can't you? It's not the tools in or by themselves that will improve (or worsen) the world, rather something at your disposal to pursue your goals.
> the myth that the computer will lead to a better, more equal society
Agreed that it won't. But, IMO, the strength of Shelter is that it covers a niche that many other systems (blockchain-y or otherwise) don't, which is data autonomy and confidentiality. Most popular web apps today are centralised silos that don't give you privacy from the operator, and those that aim for federation often also don't give you much privacy either.
Now, it can be that those factors are not important for the specific thing you're developing, and that's fine. But, if they are, having an existing framework to build on top of can give you a head start (even indirectly, by showing you what works or doesn't).
Disclaimer: I'm involved in the development of Shelter. All opinions are my own.
As an Adam Curtis fan (for all his faults), I don't believe technology is neutral nor that progress is teleologic. I do believe that people could be better served that software that works in their interests instead of against them.
And funny you mention a broken world, as if we're doomed to be excluded from the paradise of eden, the very first walled garden. Those of us working on distributed applications are trying to make walled gardens obsolete, no forgiveness required :)
thats it. thats all it is. all the madness about cryptography replacing trust just makes that power more concentrated.
But on a broader scale, I don't see what in cryptography makes power inherently more concentrated. Crypto is just a way for enforcing certain trust relations that have already been established or agreed upon. Just like you can use crypto to help centralise power (e.g., allowing you to only run signed applications that can only show signed content), you can use crypto to help decentralise power with tools for confidentially presenting content and allowing you to vet your applications haven't been tampered with.
In both cases the underlying technology has many common components, and what changes is the use you make of it.
blockchains have little to do with that though, they're more of an easily-validated data replication technique than anything that has social implications. and they've been around for much, MUCH longer than bitcoin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree
Is it? From where I sit it's an environmental catastrophe as we burn squillions of CPU/GPU cycles for the modern day tulip craze (bitcoin).
For any purported use case of blockchains, with possible exception of buying illegal things online, existing technologies are better.
An immutable ledger != bitcoin.