But in any case, there’s a difference between good judgement and intellect, and a difference between an idea and its execution. If he’s truly puzzled through Ethereum’s usefulness, he hasn’t offered an argument that’s convincing enough to me. However, I can still admire the thought and skill that went into its implementation.
It is of course entirely possible that I’m thoroughly mistaken.
Vitalik has demonstrated an exhaustively thoughtful approach to building technology, is exceptionally humble, and seems to deeply contemplate the fifth-order implications of decisions being made.
It seems absurd to me that people think someone like this has not sufficiently thought through the societal value of their life's work.
Is this a friend of yours? Because you have more confidence in him than I have with people I know personally. Sounds parasocial.
If only! Given you've tied your identity to pessimism, which I assume implied you see it as a virtue, I think you might be somewhat more inclined to misanthropy than me. And that's ok. :)
I’m guessing there’s an intentional link with https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pessary (from Latin Pessarium) as well as the computing term pessimal (same root as pessimism, from French pessimisme, from Latin pessimus “worst”) and optimizer.
He has a dangerous combination of self-delusion + intelligence
Go back through HN threads on the countless crypto failures and frauds and count how many times some variation of “I don’t understand, they were so smart!” comes up. Or the threads leading up to those failures where the defenders invariably trot out “there are a lot of smart people involved in this, you seriously think you know better?”
I find it funny that you think this is an answerable or useful question, rather than an appeal to authority.
As the sibling comment says it, succinctly: "“I am smart in one area so I am therefore smart in everything” is the original sin of crypto"
Vitalik is very superficially smart in many areas. Refuting his oftentimes pseudo intellectual takes on what's happening takes too much time because "but he sounds so smart".
In this latest one the most obvious one is the entire "Hybrid applications" section. Which never worked, doesn't work and will never work the way he pretends blockchains will enable them to work. His statement "Voting is an excellent example" is patently, provably bullshit [1], but "he's smart so he's right" is hard to beat. Same goes for everything else he throws in there.
[1] To quote, not in full:
--- start quote ---
the purported advantages for a voting system in a weakly-governed country. “Keep your voting records in a tamper-proof repository not owned by anyone” sounds right — yet is your Afghan villager going to download the blockchain from a broadcast node and decrypt the Merkle root from his Linux command line to independently verify that his vote has been counted? Or will he rely on the mobile app of a trusted third party...
...Instead of relying on trust or regulation, in the blockchain world, individuals are on-purpose responsible for their own security precautions. And if the software they use is malicious or buggy, they should have read the software more carefully.
...
Blockchain systems do not magically make the data in them accurate or the people entering the data trustworthy, they merely enable you to audit whether it has been tampered with. A person who sprayed pesticides on a mango can still enter onto a blockchain system that the mangoes were organic. A corrupt government can create a blockchain system to count the votes and just allocate an extra million addresses to their cronies.
https://medium.com/@kaistinchcombe/decentralized-and-trustle...
--- end quote ---
For government registries see this discussion about land registries from two years ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27212564
And so on.
Do you think it's more likely that Vitalik is mistaken that crypto is obviously useful for humanity, or that he knows it isn't and doesn't care, or that your assessment of crypto being useless is incorrect?