The doomsday cult and spiritual guru model of community-building fits right into the Silicon Valley culture of techno-optimism alongside the "if you believe it, you can achieve it" New Age mantras and "fake it till you make it, it's not fraud if you believe it" naivete.
The only thing more upsetting that watching it happen is knowing how it will likely unravel, with everyone pointing fingers and rushing to find a conspiracy theory to explain why "the powers that be" targeted them for destruction because they were so threatened and were afraid of the power they were losing to the Bored Ape movement, or whatever it is.
Until the bubble pops, then better not be one holding the bucket.
I mean the easy reply is no: Fusion is not a solution in search of a problem. It has a precise defined desired output, and the engineering is being worked on to achieve that output.
(E.g.) NFT don't. Smart contracts don't. Even cryptocurrencies don't. If you precisely define what you want from a cryptocurrency, then you'll either end up with something that's better solved centralized (to a larger or lesser degree, but at least control), or you'll end up with something that nobody actually wants.
And if you launch today with something nobody actually wants, then you get rich. So who cares if eventually it solves a problem? And there's no incentive to make that happen.
The main difference is that blockchains are being launched before any thought has been put into what problems they solve. Because the money is made on the speculation. Solving the problem is incidental.
Sure, you could be super cynical and say that fusion, or indeed every single company in the world, is only there to make money, primarily. But they do that by solving (or trying to solve) actual problems.
Again on cryptocurrencies: Why do you think I'll have a hard time walking into a bank with duffle bags full of cash? Really think about that question. Really think about the hundreds of years of thought that has gone into it.
Do you think the main problem these generations of people were trying to solve was "intransigent bankers"? Do you think the bank doesn't "like" you as a customer if you walk in with duffle bags full of cash without explanation, and that's why it has rules and takes time, and you have to explain yourself?
Now cryptocurrencies just treat that as "that's stupid, let's remove all that".
Let's say a thief stole your TV. They catch the thief, and a court orders them to repay you. They have the money. They say no. Obviously you want a court order to be able to take their money.
A friend of mine was sexually attacked by a guy. The guy was convicted and ordered to pay a fine. He refused. The court ordered his safe deposit box opened, and they took the money.
And that's a good thing.
> when you don’t actually follow the technology
The technology doesn't matter, if problems are misidentified.
Plenty of people want and use what crypto already offers. Moneygram was a horrible experience for me, for example, I'm really glad my language school accepting crypto payments.
You're saying a statistically significant number of people want all three branches of government to be completely stripped of any power? No criminal or civil courts?
I think that's ridiculous on its face.
Would you please stop posting flamewar comments to HN? You've been doing it repeatedly. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful. Note these ones:
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
"Eschew flamebait. Avoid unrelated controversies and generic tangents."
Flamewar comments like this, and others you posted, are not ok on HN and will get your account banned. If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
Whether or not they are "proper democracies" is really beside the point because no one can define a "proper democracy" (US and Sweden are different as night and day and yet both are democracies, for example).
And crypto makes non-functioning governments significantly worse. Good luck proving the NFT on your house proves you're an owner in a dysfunctional government.
> The absolute vast majority of people in the world live in countries with functioning governments.
The underlying statement you are making bere is that we shouldn’t be building technology that helps people undermine their governments’ ability to control their citizens’ assets.
That’s the crux of the argument here. If you live in a government where things generally work for you, this technology is threatening. If you don’t, it’s a possible path to some semblance of autonomy.
How so? We've already seen large scale shutdowns of crypto projects by centralized authorities like OpenSea. I highly doubt dysfunctional and authoritarian governments are going to swallow allowing their citizens to use these platforms without also ensuring that they have a measure of control over it. And if an authoritarian government wants to steal your assets, they'll just install malware on your device and take your keys, then you've lost everything. Or they'll just disappear you until you agree to hand things over.
1. There are very few such governments on earth, all things considered
2. You still need to somehow convert those "assets" into, you know, actual food, and clothing, and... In a truly dysfunctional government rubber-hose cryptanalysis is a thing that exists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber-hose_cryptanalysis
> The underlying statement you are making bere is that we shouldn’t be building technology that helps people undermine their governments’ ability to control their citizens’ assets.
No. The underlying statement is: you're building something that doesn't work the way it's advertised.
> That’s the crux of the argument here.
Well, if you invent arguments, pretend your opponent said those argumetns, and then bravely fight those arguments, then surely, that's the crux.
So. Back to my original statement: "Crypto makes non-functioning governments significantly worse. Good luck proving the NFT on your house proves you're an owner in a dysfunctional government." It's an objective fact that doesn't rely on your imagining of what a dysfunctional government is.
I'm not going to wade into any of the crypto arguments here but your repeated downplaying of dysfunctional/authoritarian/corrupt/failing governments seems entirely disconnected with the reality that tens, perhaps hundreds[0], of millions of people live every day.
Just because true democracy is a hard thing to define (per your previous comment), doesn't make oppressive governments any less oppressive.
There are lots of valid complaints about Crypto and NFT's, but the argument that poor government is not that bad of a global problem "all things considered" is an absolutely terrible one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_of_Economic_Freedom and https://www.fraserinstitute.org/studies/economic-freedom-of-...
Again: stop inventing the arguments that are not there. The only people who are downplaying dysfunctonal governments are the crypto shills and crypto peddlers.
If you actually took care and read what I wrote instead of imagining what I wrote, you'd see that never did I downplay dysfunctional governments.
> doesn't make oppressive governments any less oppressive.
Literally nowhere I said this.
> but the argument that poor government is not that bad of a global problem "all things considered" is an absolutely terrible one.
If only there was a single person here who made this argument. Also, an oppressive government does not a dysfunctional government make.
So, in the course of just a few sentences you made these claims:
- that I downplayed dysfunctional/authoritarian/corrupt/failing governments. I didn't
- that I somehow argued that oppressive gvernments are not that oppressive. I didn't
- that somehow authoritarian/oppressive is equal to dysfunctional. It isn't, necessarily.
What I did write was:
- the vast majority of people in this world do not live in dysfunctional governments
- crypto makes the problems with dysfunctional governments worse: your "assets that goverment can't steal" have to be somehow converted into food/clothing/shelter etc. which makes you a target for Rubber-hose cryptanalysis etc. Any other "assets" are worthless because your "non fungible proof of ownership on blockchain" on your house, car, and other physical items are woth exactly zero even in a functional government, much less in a dysfunctional one.
So. "All things considered", what's your opposition to what I wrote and not to what you imagine I wrote?
OK. Lets' start here. Do you have citation for any of these gems?
> the vast majority of people in this world do not live in dysfunctional governments
> There are very few such governments on earth, all things considered
Anyone who would write such subjective, unprovable "facts" with the certainty you did is not interested in honest debate.
Please read the links I provided regarding economic freedoms in the world. China alone is ~ 20% of the worlds population and has currency controls prohibiting its citizens from spending their own money how they wish. That's a single country.
As I said, I'm not here to debate the merits of crypto. I'm here because you are coming across as minimizing the economic struggles of millions of people. If that's not what you intended then fine - feel free to clarify. But that's how you are coming across (in additional to being generally aggressive and angry).
Having said that, I would challenge you to provide support for this assertion:
> crypto makes the problems with dysfunctional governments worse
Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to think that people can't/don't cash out abroad. Or that they can't wait until the economic/political system is safer to cash out domestically. Am I understanding that correctly?
As an aside: because you started your reply with "Again...", I suspect you didn't notice that this is our first interaction, and I'm not the other commenter you are engaged with. I suspect some of your anger/confusion is because you are confusing us?
I will only answer this because it's both hillarious and sad that crypto peddelrs have literally zero understanding of how the world works.
- Does China have currency controls? Yes
- Is China an authoritarian regime for some unspecified definition of authoritarian? Yes
- Does this mean it's dysfunctional and its citizens need help from crypto? Ahahahaha, no.
And here's why. An average person in a functioning state couldn't care less about not being able to spend some other country's currency somewhere else.
- Does China have a functioning government? Yes
- Does China have functioning banks? Yes
- Does China have means by which its citizens can procure and use goods and services? A resounding yes. As an example, on Singles Day AliPay alone handles over a bllion orders a day.
- Does China have means by which its citizens can participate in global economy including, but not limited to trading with other countries? A resounding yes. Between the EU, the US and Japan China does almost 2 trillion of dollars of international trade. Hobbyists and entusiasts all around the world routinely order made-to-order things from small companies and individuals in China. etc. etc. etc.
> I'm here because you are coming across as minimizing the economic struggles of millions of people.
Once again, stop pretending I'm doing and saying something I'm not. The only ones who minimise and frankly have no idea about struggles of millions of people are crypto peddlers in this thread.
I mean, you are literally saying that people in China are struggling because they cannot do currency speculation. How out of touch with real world can you be?
> Unless I'm mistaken, you seem to think that people can't/don't cash out abroad.
Yes, you are mistaken. I never, at any point in the conversation ever even talked about taking cash abroad. And since you decided to present China as an example... Have you never seen a Chinese tourist? They have no problems taking cash abroad it seems.
> I suspect you didn't notice that this is our first interaction
I honestly can't distinguish between people with identical behaviours.
> I suspect some of your anger/confusion is because you are confusing us?
I suspect my anger is because you are identical:
- you invent arguments your opponent never produced
- you have literally no understanding of the world around you. For example, an authoritarian regime is not necessarily dysfunctional, and people in authoritarian regimes don't necessarily suffer. Yet, you keep pretending it's the same things, and people necessarily suffer
- You keep pretending that the only thing people en messe care about is currencies, and are suffering if they can't buy/spend other currencies than their countries'.
And on and on and on.
This is my last post in this pointless thread. Do come back when you have learned:
- how to answer what your opponent said, not what you imagine your opponent said, and
- how the world works. Go visit China, for example.
Please stop posting flamewar comments, like you did here and elsewhere. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.
Please especially stay out of tit-for-tat flamewars like this. They're not interesting to anyone else and the way they turn nasty and aggressive is particularly against the site guidelines.
If you'd please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when posting here, we'd appreciate it.
What!? By definition, they suffer. It's right in the definition of the word:
favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom
I mean come on. You're saying I don't understand how the world works, but say dishonest things like this? Really? Wow.
>I will only answer this because it's both hillarious and sad that crypto peddelrs have literally zero understanding of how the world works. [...] An average person in a functioning state couldn't care less about not being able to spend some other country's currency somewhere else.
It's plain that you who don't understand how the world works. Why do you think those currency controls exist? For funsies? I mean really... you're failing at very basic logic. There are actual, very real, flesh and blood people in this very thread claiming they are using crypto to evade currency controls. But you downplay their struggles.
Not very classy. But, anything to win an argument right? Speaking of class, you know it's also possible to disagree on something without juvenile, grade-school level taunting. You should try it.
>You keep pretending that the only thing people en messe care about is currencies
I said it's the only thing? Really? I said that? No, I merely said it was a thing. I very important one. But... it's me who's putting words in your mouth. Right.
Don't bother replying. I won't be reading it. I'm cool to debate many things but basic concepts around human rights (including economic ones) are not one of them.
There's lots to hate about crypto. I agree with that 100%. I won't strongly argue about any of them except this particular topic (evading currency controls in authoritarian countries).
You know, you can still be right about crypto in general while conceding a very small point: That draconian currency controls are a form of economic oppression that millions of people suffer under. There are examples in this very thread you are outright ignoring.
Stay angry, friend.
In particular, please stop the pattern where you get entangled with some other user you're arguing with, and then get increasingly aggressive toward them. That's absolutely not ok, regardless of how wrong they or or you feel they are, and regardless of whether they're also breaking the site guidelines.
Also, please don't use HN primarily for ideological battle. I'm seeing mostly that in your recent comments. We want curious conversation, not battle, on this site. Not only are those not the same, they're incompatible—for the same reason that having a tank battle and playing frisbee in the park are not compatible, or that boxing and dancing aren't. When an account is primarily using HN for battle, that's one line at which we ban the account [1, 2]. I don't want to ban you, so if you'd please fix this also, I'd appreciate it.
It would be good if you'd review the guidelines and take their intended spirit to heart. We want thoughtful, respectful, intellectually interesting conversation that gratifies intellectual curiosity. We don't want comments (and commenters) that are just out to defeat enemies—which I'm afraid is how your participation in more than one thread has been coming across. If you want more explanation, perhaps https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23959679 would help.
[1] https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...
[2] https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...
2. Bud, if we go tell every cryptocurrency enthusiast that they'll be allowed to invest in it now and get a return on investment in 80+ years[1], crypto will be dead within 24 hours.
[1] The first experimental fusion reactor was tested in 1958 and at the rate they're going, 2038 seems like a reasonable date for the first commercial fusion reactor.
Which is like keeping your tap water running into the sewers at full blast 24/7 and saying you're stimulating the desalination industry.
Also sounds like Zorn in Fifth Element, when he's talking about the benefits of destruction. When your argument sounds like one made by a fictional over the top Hitler-inspired absolute evil character, then maybe you should reassess your life choices.
It's a bit more sophisticated than that, no? I thought the argument was that renewable energy sources could use crypto mining to monetize power which would otherwise go to waste during periods of low demand.
During periods of low demand we can shut down coal plans (instead they spin up new ones to mine). And even solar is not without guilt as equipment goes end of life.
Even if we were to live in a world powered entirely by even production base load such as nuclear we'll still have hydro that can be saved, and even pump storage hydro if there's still left over.
There's no getting around it: this argument is still spinning destruction to be construction. And it's clearly a spin that's being done for very direct financial gain.
But remember too that when you say "low demand", what you mean is that it sets a price floor on energy. The equilibrium for miners is to continue mining always when the price is lower than their ROI. This means that fluctuations in a cryptocurrency can mean that demand is unmet, if such demand is not able or willing to pay the same as this rentseeking mining is.
Concretely: If we were at equilibrium, and we suddenly invent an energy source that would drop energy price by 10x, real prices would still not go down, because economic incentives such that mining would eat up ALL of that potential lowering of price, and we'd be back to the price we started at. All price of energy would be bounded at the lower end by cryptocurrency mining incentives.
We'd have rolling blackouts when the currency goes up. Or when gas fees/attestation fees go up, depending on the details.
We'd have doubling-to-quadrupling of energy prices like we've had this winter, except triggered by even more causes.
So no, I'd say it's the same as what I've said, or worse.
Granted, early timelines from Vitalik and others were way off base initially. The planning fallacy is a thing, and we shouldn't expect a 21 year old to accurately predict the timing of a very complex network migration. Hanlon's razor suggests that bad estimates are usually just bad estimates, not some kind of scam.
Both the original article and the response are reasonable, which is rare in this discussion. There's actual substance, rather than lazy binary conclusions.
At no point did I say "this is a lie".
You can disagree with my factual rebuttal of the response, but you are also factually incorrect that I was doing some sort of shitposting.
"Any decade now we will have PoS" Almost every blockchain already is. Ether will move to PoS within the coming 2 years. They must, as competition is fierce and may become irrelevant if they don't. Bitcoin will never move to PoS. So, "any decade"...what does it factually refer to?
Your remark on use cases is equally primitive. There's a few hundred million people using crypto. You can say that the existing use cases aren't for you, but that's not factual. Facts are that user growth is exponential.
Singling out ransomware is equally lazy. A recent study showed that the portion of criminal activity in the crypto space is lower compared to cash. Yet you'd never comment on cash being a criminal invention, would you? Yet you're the "intellectually honest" one.
You know that's not relevant. Nobody cares about the number of blockchains having one or another attribute. I could create and launch a billion new ones, and it doesn't matter.
> Ether will move to PoS within the coming 2 years.
I truly hope so. I'll believe it when I see it.
> There's a few hundred million people using crypto.
Estimate I found is one, not a few. But that could be wrong.
But yeah. I know of several people who tried, some successfully, to get paid in bitcoin. They didn't want to pay taxes.
Everyone wants everyone else to pay their fair share. You can't point to someone saying "Well I don't want to pay my fair share" as a contradiction, because that's a completely different statement.
Everyone wants only sober people on the street, but come on, it's me and I only had three beers and it's like a 10min drive.
> Singling out ransomware is equally lazy.
Lazy because it's not hard. "Pointing out murder is wrong, is lazy". Uh… so what?
> A recent study showed that the portion of criminal activity in the crypto space is lower compared to cash.
Speculation is by far the biggest, yes. Studies have shown that much or most of that speculation is market manipulation, too.
> Yet you'd never comment on cash being a criminal invention, would you?
I didn't say that about blockchain either. I said it's a scam generator. Cryptocurrencies are more like the scam of being paid in company credits in the company store, if you want to make comparisons to cash. It's not a great comparison, of course, because your whole question assumes that "cryptocurrencies are just like cash" which they are very much not.
Partly because what I already said. But partly... well I don't think you're interested in hearing anything anything, so what's the point?
If you've gotten this far, and are this invested, then you'd need to get over the cognitive dissonance of that, and a HN comment won't help.
> you're the "intellectually honest" one.
Yup.
Did you mean to agree with the poster? Because you just perfectly proved how even ether has kicked the can down the road to avoid upsetting the apple cart.
I really hope you're right. History says otherwise. And I don't think it'll happen (not really), because the people who need to move are the same people who are financially invested in mining.
It's not hyperbole. It's been delayed for enough years that "any decade now" is actually fair.
> just like it's an extreme exaggeration to say that crypto's only use case is ransomware.
Well, other crime against your fellow man, too. And speculation.
If this were 2010 then I would agree that it's interesting technology with some possible use cases not yet clarified.
But this is 2022, and it's now time to turn this around to focus on actual solution first, get-rich-quick as a possible incidental side effect. Because we've had over a decade now of get-rich-quick first, "maybe solve a real problem, not sure how because I've not talked to domain experts to find out what the real problems actually are" as incidental.
Like, talk to any contract lawyer and ask them if "smart contract" is a solution to any of their hard problems. It's not. It just makes everything much worse.
Or currencies. You can't just (at best) say you'll bolt on AML/KYC to your perfectly anonymous currency "later". And without AML/KYC it's not actually a solution that anybody wants (except very rare anarcho-libertarians and ransomware people).
So does this whole space have positives? It's not impossible. Every single so-called solution in this space has made its intended space worse, and also created huge externalities (environment, e-waste (old mining rigs), resource shortages (GPU, SSD), etc...).
But it's not impossible that any decade now something will actually be a solution. But because the "solutions" are also get-rich-quick schemes, the "inventors" don't want to wait for the solution to actually be... a solution. Launch now, get rich, problem (of not being rich) solved.
Take PoS for example. Greta Thunberg is wrong to attack boomers. Looking at the age bracket of cryptocurrency supporters it seems that millennials are also pushing that whole "environment" thing to future generations. "Oh, it'll be fine with PoS eventually. But today we can burn the environment a bit because I gots to get paid".
So no, it doesn't "have" positives. It's one of the infinitely many pools of ideas where positives could come from, but haven't yet.
And you know very well that the Kintsugi testnet is public, to falsely pretend it's decades away is shitposting.
I don't think people should downvote this comment. It shows us where you stand, and where one has to stand, in order to be pro-cryptocurrency.
It's always "early" for some definition of the word "it". Any decade now we'll have PoS, or an actual use case for smart contracts, or NFTs etc.
But no, every year just seems to bring a new "invention" that is "still early" while implying that this, unlike every single other use of distributed blockchain, somehow is the first of all of them to not be pointless (outside of a way to find the bigger fool).
Blockchains are just scam generators.
Well, they are of great utility to ransomware, so i guess they have found one use case in over a decade.
Edit: and of course this rebuttal found like one possible mistake in statistics and calls it a "lie". That should tell you all you need to know about the author's intellectual honesty.