Not convinced, lots of good points are made, but lots of misleading and biased statements as well. There are many solutions to these problems mentioned and the stuff about the ethereum hack is weird. Eth wasnt hacked, a smart contract was. 51% attacks are not common but there are ways to eliminate this, namely replacing A blockchain with a directed acyclic graph. Like this shit is so half baked that it loses all its weight. I with the author stuck to what they actuallly knew.
Like all the stuff about whales dictating voting out comes are facts. The reality of it all is that some things are true decentralization. Like the ENS and ONS being able to replace central domain autorities. Of course there is a need for governance and human oversight ( like having voting based on verified identities not $ to determine if someone is abusing the system ). It also makes phishing and MITM attacks impossible.
Can we admit where there are merits while still calling out garbage like voting with money, NFT art, blockchain games etc? Its really that simple critisize what needs the attention. I think what makes people really mad is that its capitalism. And I think people are right to be mad about it.
I agree with everything you’ve mentioned here. TBH, I’m surprised that energy consumption was not brought up when it comes to heavier reliance on blockchain and crypto.
Seems like the primary pain points are, as you mentioned, capitalism and a premature tech fear. Environmental impact is just such an easy point to make here, it seems weird that it’s never brought up in the original post
I agree, however I am hopeful. Majority of the ‘proof-of-work’ mining for Bitcoin comes from renewable energy. But it does create unnecessary wastage.
There are other other eco-friendly blockchains that use a ‘proof-of-stake’ model, where excessive mining is NOT required. Ethereum, the second largest in market cap (‘value’) is currently migrating to this model. And there are many other new blockchains coming out such as Solana and Avalanche which is efficient (enough), with proof-of-stake and other hybrid technology from day one.
like having voting based on verified identities not $ to determine if someone is abusing the system
Not sure that would help. In the best-case scenario, you end up with dictatorship of the majority which is not exactly a happy outcome in general (“minorities” tend to be persecuted, at least in political systems ruled this way). In the worst-case scenario, you end up with intelligence services and mafia making up thousands of fake identities to game your system.
It also makes phishing and MITM attacks impossible.
In theory, in practice just look how many malware have been doing MiTM/phishing for crypto wallets…
I think what makes people really mad is that its capitalism. And I think people are right to be mad about it.
Indeed! But blockchain as we know it is a libertarian dream of commerce without regulation, i.e. a capitalist nightmare. When i read about Brave and other startups with tokens to fund the web, i can’t help but think the web needs less financial incentives, not more.
I’m not talking about phishing in wallets. im talking about signing Content ID with NFT domains which means the content directed to when you go to website.eth is exactly what was published by the owner on IPFS a decentralized filesystem. meaning the web can be peer to peer with security and bandwidth optimization in mind while also being secure.
Ah yes that’s a very interesting property indeed! What do you think about other decentralized naming schemes like .onion, .i2p or the GNU Name System? (not talking about Handshake because the design is very similar to .eth)
I personally find the design of GNS much superior from a technical perspective: it’s backwards-compatible with DNS, and via hyper-hyper local root breaks Zooko’s triangle by dissociating human-meaningful names to global machine-generated public-key-addressed names. Clever stuff!
Indeed! But blockchain as we know it is a libertarian dream of commerce without regulation, i.e. a capitalist nightmare.
It is indeed nightmarish. To think that out there, somewhere, someone is selling something they own to someone who wants it for a price that both agree to and there’s no government man standing there making sure that the transaction occurs in the ways that we want (namely, with blessed Divine Regulation, the magic that creates such utopias as we’re all familiar with in the 20th century and early 21st).
Not convinced, lots of good points are made, but lots of misleading and biased statements as well. There are many solutions to these problems mentioned and the stuff about the ethereum hack is weird. Eth wasnt hacked, a smart contract was. 51% attacks are not common but there are ways to eliminate this, namely replacing A blockchain with a directed acyclic graph. Like this shit is so half baked that it loses all its weight. I with the author stuck to what they actuallly knew.
Like all the stuff about whales dictating voting out comes are facts. The reality of it all is that some things are true decentralization. Like the ENS and ONS being able to replace central domain autorities. Of course there is a need for governance and human oversight ( like having voting based on verified identities not $ to determine if someone is abusing the system ). It also makes phishing and MITM attacks impossible.
Can we admit where there are merits while still calling out garbage like voting with money, NFT art, blockchain games etc? Its really that simple critisize what needs the attention. I think what makes people really mad is that its capitalism. And I think people are right to be mad about it.
I agree with everything you’ve mentioned here. TBH, I’m surprised that energy consumption was not brought up when it comes to heavier reliance on blockchain and crypto.
Seems like the primary pain points are, as you mentioned, capitalism and a premature tech fear. Environmental impact is just such an easy point to make here, it seems weird that it’s never brought up in the original post
I agree, however I am hopeful. Majority of the ‘proof-of-work’ mining for Bitcoin comes from renewable energy. But it does create unnecessary wastage.
There are other other eco-friendly blockchains that use a ‘proof-of-stake’ model, where excessive mining is NOT required. Ethereum, the second largest in market cap (‘value’) is currently migrating to this model. And there are many other new blockchains coming out such as Solana and Avalanche which is efficient (enough), with proof-of-stake and other hybrid technology from day one.
Not sure that would help. In the best-case scenario, you end up with dictatorship of the majority which is not exactly a happy outcome in general (“minorities” tend to be persecuted, at least in political systems ruled this way). In the worst-case scenario, you end up with intelligence services and mafia making up thousands of fake identities to game your system.
In theory, in practice just look how many malware have been doing MiTM/phishing for crypto wallets…
Indeed! But blockchain as we know it is a libertarian dream of commerce without regulation, i.e. a capitalist nightmare. When i read about Brave and other startups with tokens to fund the web, i can’t help but think the web needs less financial incentives, not more.
I’m not talking about phishing in wallets. im talking about signing Content ID with NFT domains which means the content directed to when you go to website.eth is exactly what was published by the owner on IPFS a decentralized filesystem. meaning the web can be peer to peer with security and bandwidth optimization in mind while also being secure.
Ah yes that’s a very interesting property indeed! What do you think about other decentralized naming schemes like .onion, .i2p or the GNU Name System? (not talking about Handshake because the design is very similar to .eth)
I personally find the design of GNS much superior from a technical perspective: it’s backwards-compatible with DNS, and via hyper-hyper local root breaks Zooko’s triangle by dissociating human-meaningful names to global machine-generated public-key-addressed names. Clever stuff!
It is indeed nightmarish. To think that out there, somewhere, someone is selling something they own to someone who wants it for a price that both agree to and there’s no government man standing there making sure that the transaction occurs in the ways that we want (namely, with blessed Divine Regulation, the magic that creates such utopias as we’re all familiar with in the 20th century and early 21st).
It must be stopped. By any means necessary.