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 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