7 ms·

in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. They were hard to start for example . You would get your hands dirty and needed so

by nfin 4y ago

in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. They were hard to start for example . You would get your hands dirty and needed some power to turn that hand crank. When those problems got solved and more cars got on the road it would become dangerous with so many cars, and people suggested you need to learn it properly (and get a driver license). Some thought not many would get such a license to drive a still dangerous machine (no airbags or even ABS at that time). In the end you are ready to do the work (learn) if it is worth it. And if it is worth it… that nobody knows (in the western world the answer is mostly “no” right now, at least if one trusts the complex economic systems to work well for the next decades). If it’s worth the hassle, more technologies will get built to help.

zoover2020 4y ago
A car solves a real problem, clearly crypto only causes them.
lynx23 4y ago
> in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. I guess you mean the 20th century? In any case, those people were actually right. A car for everyone and their daughter is one of the biggest contributing factor for pollution and noise.
grey-area 4y ago
And if it is worth it… that nobody knows At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions), in a way nobody likes the consequences of (distributed) and are magnets for fraud and grift (too many to list). Now the idea of giving people cryptographic keys is really attractive and unlocks a bunch of use-cases (most of which crypto proponents have claimed in vain for a decades crypto could solve), but there are a few problems (which crypto doesn't even try to solve): how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. Maybe currencies are just the wrong angle to attack this problem from? Unfortunately that's a really hard problem - if someone can tackle that and tie it to real world verified identity, there are a gold-mine of opportunities to solve. BUT it will require trusted central services for trust, rolling back transactions in case of fraud and identify verification to keep grifters and scammers out. When you do all that you end up with something far more like our current banking system (though it does have significant problems I don't wish to downplay, it also has hundreds of years of scam protection built-in).
- nfin 4y ago
  > At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions) That’s an assumption, not a fact. And trustless transactions might not be the only problem that it tries to solve. What about predictable money supply. Trustless custody (instead of just “trustless transactions), … All these will not appeal to a lot more people today (but nobody and not many is very different, and that ratio can change with future technologies being built) > how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. The first part (how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen) does not necessarily mean that there is no decentralized solution. Social recovery (Shamir Secret Sharing + social recovery; or safer some multisig + social recovery) is being worked on. The second part “how to tie those keys to real-world identity ” is much harder (specially if one values anonimity to avoid 1984 scenarios).
  - lottin 4y ago
    The money supply is not observable. Prices are observable. People care about price stability not about stability of the money supply.
    - nfin 4y ago
      price stability has it own set of problems. If a good was regulated to have a stable price nobody would be incentivized to find a clever solution to solve a future crisis with high demand for that good
      - lottin 4y ago
        Price stability refers to the stability of the price level. It has nothing to do with changes in individual prices which are unrelated to changes in the price level.
  - grey-area 4y ago
unicornmama 4y ago
Cars got people from point A to B faster than horses. That much would have been clear even at the time because people understood trains and the potential speeds of locomotives. Crypto doesn’t do anything faster, cheaper or safer. In fact it’s the opposite: slower, more expensive and brittle. In fact, even if it could advance in those dimensions, it doesn’t seem to offer any competitive advantage over the incumbent technologies.
dmitriid 4y ago
> in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. And there I was thinking that the stupid comparisons of crypto to cars or internet finally stopped. > And if it is worth it… that nobody knows Tell me you know nothing about history without telling me you know nothing about history
jjslocum3 4y ago
This entire comment seems to reprise the FTX/Larry David Super Bowl commercial. I'm sure there's a term-of-art for the tactic in debating circles (like "straw-man argument," or "appeal to authority"). I think of it as the "disingenuous comparison." I can't begin to list all the ways in which comparing the auto industry of the 20th century to crypto of today breaks down. For starters, automobiles promised a massive demonstrable value-add to society from the get-go. Crypto, as others here have pointed out, is a solution looking for a problem. So far, every application of crypto has actually destroyed value for the process it seeks to replace[1], by adding layers of busy-work on top of an already-working process. If it were of value as a self-contained, isolated ecosystem, then things might be different; but where it interfaces with the existing economic infrastructure within which it needs to operate (and which it seeks to replace), any economic efficiencies bleed out rapidly. [1] Edit: And I'm not even considering the scams

by nfin 4y ago

zoover2020 4y ago

A car solves a real problem, clearly crypto only causes them.

lynx23 4y ago

> in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. I guess you mean the 20th century? In any case, those people were actually right. A car for everyone and their daughter is one of the biggest contributing factor for pollution and noise.

grey-area 4y ago

And if it is worth it… that nobody knows At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions), in a way nobody likes the consequences of (distributed) and are magnets for fraud and grift (too many to list). Now the idea of giving people cryptographic keys is really attractive and unlocks a bunch of use-cases (most of which crypto proponents have claimed in vain for a decades crypto could solve), but there are a few problems (which crypto doesn't even try to solve): how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. Maybe currencies are just the wrong angle to attack this problem from? Unfortunately that's a really hard problem - if someone can tackle that and tie it to real world verified identity, there are a gold-mine of opportunities to solve. BUT it will require trusted central services for trust, rolling back transactions in case of fraud and identify verification to keep grifters and scammers out. When you do all that you end up with something far more like our current banking system (though it does have significant problems I don't wish to downplay, it also has hundreds of years of scam protection built-in).

nfin 4y ago
> At the moment, it's quite clear that current cryptocurrencies are solving problems nobody has (trustless transactions) That’s an assumption, not a fact. And trustless transactions might not be the only problem that it tries to solve. What about predictable money supply. Trustless custody (instead of just “trustless transactions), … All these will not appeal to a lot more people today (but nobody and not many is very different, and that ratio can change with future technologies being built) > how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen, and related how to tie those keys to real-world identity in a meaningful way, how to rollback fraud and punish grifters, etc... for most of these you need a trusted central authority and also trusted, verified identity. The first part (how to restore keys when they lose them or they are stolen) does not necessarily mean that there is no decentralized solution. Social recovery (Shamir Secret Sharing + social recovery; or safer some multisig + social recovery) is being worked on. The second part “how to tie those keys to real-world identity ” is much harder (specially if one values anonimity to avoid 1984 scenarios).
- lottin 4y ago
  The money supply is not observable. Prices are observable. People care about price stability not about stability of the money supply.
  - nfin 4y ago
    price stability has it own set of problems. If a good was regulated to have a stable price nobody would be incentivized to find a clever solution to solve a future crisis with high demand for that good
    - lottin 4y ago
      Price stability refers to the stability of the price level. It has nothing to do with changes in individual prices which are unrelated to changes in the price level.
- grey-area 4y ago

unicornmama 4y ago

Cars got people from point A to B faster than horses. That much would have been clear even at the time because people understood trains and the potential speeds of locomotives. Crypto doesn’t do anything faster, cheaper or safer. In fact it’s the opposite: slower, more expensive and brittle. In fact, even if it could advance in those dimensions, it doesn’t seem to offer any competitive advantage over the incumbent technologies.

dmitriid 4y ago

> in the beginning of the 21st century, some said cars are not for the masses. And there I was thinking that the stupid comparisons of crypto to cars or internet finally stopped. > And if it is worth it… that nobody knows Tell me you know nothing about history without telling me you know nothing about history

jjslocum3 4y ago

This entire comment seems to reprise the FTX/Larry David Super Bowl commercial. I'm sure there's a term-of-art for the tactic in debating circles (like "straw-man argument," or "appeal to authority"). I think of it as the "disingenuous comparison." I can't begin to list all the ways in which comparing the auto industry of the 20th century to crypto of today breaks down. For starters, automobiles promised a massive demonstrable value-add to society from the get-go. Crypto, as others here have pointed out, is a solution looking for a problem. So far, every application of crypto has actually destroyed value for the process it seeks to replace[1], by adding layers of busy-work on top of an already-working process. If it were of value as a self-contained, isolated ecosystem, then things might be different; but where it interfaces with the existing economic infrastructure within which it needs to operate (and which it seeks to replace), any economic efficiencies bleed out rapidly. [1] Edit: And I'm not even considering the scams