Andreessen on Crypto(marginalrevolution.com)
marginalrevolution.com
Andreessen on Crypto
https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/06/andreessen-on-crypto.html
108 comments
I agree it would be nice, I think right/left is not so much a set of ideologies as an advertising campaign that has taken on a life of its own.
That said, I think one feature of that campaign is that every party will have to have a position on things affecting the population, crypto eventually being one of those.
That said, I think one feature of that campaign is that every party will have to have a position on things affecting the population, crypto eventually being one of those.
It's also a very strange characterisation of left and right wing. In the UK centralisation is thought to be right wing, and consensus is considered left wing.
> — the ability for many untrusted participants in a network to establish consistency and trust. This is something the Internet has never had, but now it does, and I think it will take 30 years to work through all of the things we can do as a result.
Wow, when you put it like that, it's amazing that I can shop, bank, and safely talk with my friends and family online. Pretty much all my messages are encrypted and/or checksummed (as necessary) and I still have to trust all the hardware and software on top to do it's job, just like anything else.
How does "Crypto" change this?
Wow, when you put it like that, it's amazing that I can shop, bank, and safely talk with my friends and family online. Pretty much all my messages are encrypted and/or checksummed (as necessary) and I still have to trust all the hardware and software on top to do it's job, just like anything else.
How does "Crypto" change this?
you don't have to trust the vendor, the bank, or the social media company.
The conservative vs liberal angle is interesting but it just feels so contrived. So far the only thing cryptocurrencies was used for was to speculate on value of tokens and digital currencies. And my conclusion from that case-study is that cryptocurrency as a whole is a system unworthy of trust. Who owns BTC/ETH?
So cryptocurrencies allow you to buy something from someone you don't trust? How does that work?
For a transaction like that up to now, you'd need someone you both trust to hold the payment in escrow until the transaction clears. Crypto automates the job of the trusted third party because you can both audit the code and predict what will happen.
The code doesn't know whether the terms of the agreement have been fulfilled.
You still have to trust your hardware, software and surrounding tech (phone, computer, etc), produced by central authorities (lawful companies implementing government laws).
[deleted]
Really!? How!?
So says the guy with a gigantic stake in cryptocurrencies. Screw him for making my choice of technology a political statement or making technology simply an extension of a political view.
I think this says more about Andreessen than it does about technology. Andreessen is pushing cryptocurrencies and his motivation is clearly political.
I think this says more about Andreessen than it does about technology. Andreessen is pushing cryptocurrencies and his motivation is clearly political.
The nature of the cryptocurrency beast, with its endless land rushes, is that participants are constantly incented to act like shady penny stock boosters. There may be some true believers in there but it’s impossible to tell with all the chaff.
Could someone edit the title and replace "crypto" with "cryptocurrencies"?
They're synonymous, and crypto is the colloquial term.
They are only synonyms to coinheads.
I don't own any crypto and barely keep up with the happenings in the ecosystem.
Cryptocurrency is just more commonly talked about than cryptography.
Cryptocurrency is just more commonly talked about than cryptography.
Dictionary has
1) a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief.
2) cryptocurrency.
3) cryptography.
obvs the perceived meaning of words depends on context. You can't really just declare 3) is the only true meaning.
1) a person who secretly supports or adheres to a group, party, or belief.
2) cryptocurrency.
3) cryptography.
obvs the perceived meaning of words depends on context. You can't really just declare 3) is the only true meaning.
Funny, my dictionaries don't have a definition for "crypto" at all. Google gives only the following two definitions for me:
1. short for cryptography.
2. (informal) a person having a secret allegiance to a political creed, especially communism.
Or as a prefix / combining form:
1. concealed; secret.
From the Greek kruptos.
I have no idea who manages www.dictionary.com, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they took payments from coinheads to push this shit.
1. short for cryptography.
2. (informal) a person having a secret allegiance to a political creed, especially communism.
Or as a prefix / combining form:
1. concealed; secret.
From the Greek kruptos.
I have no idea who manages www.dictionary.com, but I honestly wouldn't be surprised if they took payments from coinheads to push this shit.
AES-256 begs to differ... although having said that... it's probably a token by now as well.
> we can now, in theory, build Internet native contracts, loans, insurance, title to real world assets, unique digital goods (known as non-fungible tokens or NFTs), online corporate structures (such as digital autonomous organizations or DAOs), and on and on.
I'm so tired of this stupid mantra that crypto-addicts keep repeating.
1. You can't put real world events into a blockchain in a decentralized manner. In no fckn way. How are you gonna put a result of a sports event into a blockchain? By mining what? It's ridiculous. It always should be an oracle, authority, company, government, etc, i.e. a centralized trusted entity.
2. Loans. Yeah, loans to anonymous entities that can just transfer money to another wallet without any possibility of reversal.
3. Digital ownership. It's nothing without a possibility of a forceful defense of this ownership. You bought a house on a blockchain, but previous owners don't want to leave. What are you gonna do? Call Satoshi?
I'm so tired of this stupid mantra that crypto-addicts keep repeating.
1. You can't put real world events into a blockchain in a decentralized manner. In no fckn way. How are you gonna put a result of a sports event into a blockchain? By mining what? It's ridiculous. It always should be an oracle, authority, company, government, etc, i.e. a centralized trusted entity.
2. Loans. Yeah, loans to anonymous entities that can just transfer money to another wallet without any possibility of reversal.
3. Digital ownership. It's nothing without a possibility of a forceful defense of this ownership. You bought a house on a blockchain, but previous owners don't want to leave. What are you gonna do? Call Satoshi?
You talk very confidently about something you don't seem to know much about.
1. >You can't put real world events on blockchain
Yes you absolutely can, look into decentralized oracle projects like Chainlink or Augur for more info.
2. Loans already exist fully onchain, look into Aave and Compound. Loans are overcollatoralized so 'credit' of address doesn't matter. They haven't figured out undercollatoralized loans yet, but it's just a matter of time before we get propor decentralized identity, which will open opportunities for credit creation on chain.
3. As for titles to realestate, its just a matter of time before goverments recognize deeds held on chain as legitimate, and then that problem is solved.
1. >You can't put real world events on blockchain
Yes you absolutely can, look into decentralized oracle projects like Chainlink or Augur for more info.
2. Loans already exist fully onchain, look into Aave and Compound. Loans are overcollatoralized so 'credit' of address doesn't matter. They haven't figured out undercollatoralized loans yet, but it's just a matter of time before we get propor decentralized identity, which will open opportunities for credit creation on chain.
3. As for titles to realestate, its just a matter of time before goverments recognize deeds held on chain as legitimate, and then that problem is solved.
Never look to people like Andreesen or Thiel for political advice.
Do they think that giant companies are run in a decentralized manner in any way? Walmart, Target, Delta, Southwest, Google, Facebook, etc, are all plagued by “central planning”, and resemble the USSR more than they resemble any right-libertarian ideal.
Never mind the fact that the word libertarian referred to left-libertarians until right-libertarians coopted it in the 60s. Left-libertarianism predates right-libertarianism by a century
Also, it’s rich for Thiel to talk about decentralization when he used his money and power to support Trump, the most authoritarian President in a while. Cut a right-libertarian, and a fascist bleeds.
Do they think that giant companies are run in a decentralized manner in any way? Walmart, Target, Delta, Southwest, Google, Facebook, etc, are all plagued by “central planning”, and resemble the USSR more than they resemble any right-libertarian ideal.
Never mind the fact that the word libertarian referred to left-libertarians until right-libertarians coopted it in the 60s. Left-libertarianism predates right-libertarianism by a century
Also, it’s rich for Thiel to talk about decentralization when he used his money and power to support Trump, the most authoritarian President in a while. Cut a right-libertarian, and a fascist bleeds.
From the article, the use case discussed is distributed consensus.
With cryptocurrencies we as society have the option of a new way of organizing labor and capital to achieve a goal. Instead of kings, politicians, corporate owners or middlemen - we have the opportunity to build systems based on the idea of rules without rulers.
Bitcoin eliminates the need for central bankers to control the money supply.
Ethereum replaces armies of lawyers and beaurocrats with smart contract code.
In the future crypto might allow you to build Ubercoin so we can have a distributed ride-sharing platform without a central entity in the middle.
These new distributed consensus mechanisms eliminate the weaknesses of traditional approaches which rely on fallible human leaders who can be corrupted replacing them with code and incentives.
This allows for emergent properties such as censorship resistant money that can be transmitted quickly and irrevocably over the internet.
These are novel and innovative use cases powered by the most important invention of the 21at century.
With cryptocurrencies we as society have the option of a new way of organizing labor and capital to achieve a goal. Instead of kings, politicians, corporate owners or middlemen - we have the opportunity to build systems based on the idea of rules without rulers.
Bitcoin eliminates the need for central bankers to control the money supply.
Ethereum replaces armies of lawyers and beaurocrats with smart contract code.
In the future crypto might allow you to build Ubercoin so we can have a distributed ride-sharing platform without a central entity in the middle.
These new distributed consensus mechanisms eliminate the weaknesses of traditional approaches which rely on fallible human leaders who can be corrupted replacing them with code and incentives.
This allows for emergent properties such as censorship resistant money that can be transmitted quickly and irrevocably over the internet.
These are novel and innovative use cases powered by the most important invention of the 21at century.
How does real-life information enter a smart contract, and how do you make sure all sides make good on their dues?
A real life human still has to decide about real life information to put on the chain, but the point is we’re now globally unconstrained about who we choose to arbitrate that information. That allows for an intense global competition for trustworthy and reliable sources.
Say we enter a weather derivative contract that pays off based on total rainfall. If there’s a dispute, instead of a two-bit local judge playing amateur meteorologist, we can simply point our smart contract at AccuWeather’s daily data. AccuWeather is going to be far less likely to destroy their entire franchise by publicly releasing bad data to corrupt a single contract.
The point of smart contracts isn’t that everything’s automated. It’s that we can identify the areas that do require human input, and mix and match the best and most trustworthy oracles with high domain expertise.
Say we enter a weather derivative contract that pays off based on total rainfall. If there’s a dispute, instead of a two-bit local judge playing amateur meteorologist, we can simply point our smart contract at AccuWeather’s daily data. AccuWeather is going to be far less likely to destroy their entire franchise by publicly releasing bad data to corrupt a single contract.
The point of smart contracts isn’t that everything’s automated. It’s that we can identify the areas that do require human input, and mix and match the best and most trustworthy oracles with high domain expertise.
But how does that change anything? I don’t like the output of the smart contract, so I sue accuweather, the smart contract owner, and anyone else involved in the transaction. Some “two bit” judge then adjudicates the dispute after all. What if the judge rules that accuweather’s record is incorrect?
All I see is that now I have yet another party to trust: whomever wrote the smart contract. Why should I trust him/her? How do I know that there isn’t an intentional logic issue or unintentional bug that will end up with me losing my money? What’s my recourse then?
All I see is that now I have yet another party to trust: whomever wrote the smart contract. Why should I trust him/her? How do I know that there isn’t an intentional logic issue or unintentional bug that will end up with me losing my money? What’s my recourse then?
The judge has no say. The smart contract is collateralized ahead of time. Both parties lock sufficient value in the contract to make sure that the payment can be made good. After the value is locked in the contract, there's nothing any fiat judge on Earth can do to reverse the smart contract, short of shutting down the entire blockchain.
I agree that you have to trust the software underlying the contract. But it's highly likely that you'll use an open standard that's battle tested across time. Typically it's much easier to develop trust in software than it is institutions. Every day you trust your life, privacy and money to open software standards across a wide variety of contexts.
I agree that you have to trust the software underlying the contract. But it's highly likely that you'll use an open standard that's battle tested across time. Typically it's much easier to develop trust in software than it is institutions. Every day you trust your life, privacy and money to open software standards across a wide variety of contexts.
What software do I trust my life and money to which does not give me legal recourse if I encounter an issue?
One option today is Chainlink which uses a host of oracles to achieve distributed consensus on real-world prices, weather or other signals.
And how would Chainlink prove that a particular side of a contract has, say, delivered a particular item or performed a particar service and the other party’s funds must be released?
Chainlink hasn’t solved for every external blockchain integration - I never claimed they did. Chainlink simply provides a distributed consensus mechanism for getting real world observations in a robust and difficult to manipulate way, onto a blockchain.
[deleted]
It sounds to me like the technology doesn’t really replace lawyers with code, then. The one use case presented so far is a contract that relies on publicly available data arbitered by a majority of external sources, each of which is presumably inducted into the system by a trusted third party.
Give it a chance.
It may not replace every contract in every case but Ethereum in conjunction with Chainlink does address an increasing number of legacy contract use cases.
This is a nascent technology and per the article, major structural transformations such as this may play out over 30 or more years.
If you are genuinely curious I would suggest reading up on the details of how Chainlink works [1]. As you can see these are not trivial challenges and the solutions often require a bit of effort to understand. (Not claiming to be an expert, just an interested student)
[1] https://chain.link/solutions
It may not replace every contract in every case but Ethereum in conjunction with Chainlink does address an increasing number of legacy contract use cases.
This is a nascent technology and per the article, major structural transformations such as this may play out over 30 or more years.
If you are genuinely curious I would suggest reading up on the details of how Chainlink works [1]. As you can see these are not trivial challenges and the solutions often require a bit of effort to understand. (Not claiming to be an expert, just an interested student)
[1] https://chain.link/solutions
I actually am curious about the entire crypto space, and I’ve been trying to get a good theoretical grounding. I find the tech fascinating and potentially valuable.
But the majority of potential use cases so far, particularly those relating to applications beyond the strictly financial, seem to rely on flawed premises. The idea of oracles seems to go against the whole point of even using the blockchain.
Perhaps Chainlink or any number of competitors will eventually resolve some of these issues, but I don’t think they’ve presented a convincing case yet. Or I just don’t quite understand it.
But the majority of potential use cases so far, particularly those relating to applications beyond the strictly financial, seem to rely on flawed premises. The idea of oracles seems to go against the whole point of even using the blockchain.
Perhaps Chainlink or any number of competitors will eventually resolve some of these issues, but I don’t think they’ve presented a convincing case yet. Or I just don’t quite understand it.
Fair enough. Chainlink’s solution to the consensus problem is to have a large number of independent sources of real-world data for any variable. This redundancy makes it difficult for a single or a few bad actors to collude to mis-quote.
To your point though most of Chainlink’s current activity is tied to crypto-asset prices, not the broader use cases mentioned (such as weather oracles). I suspect this is due to the more lucrative short-term returns available from speculation vs other use cases.
I love the potential of crypto but would like to see more real-world use-cases. I suspect they will come in time and that short-term speculation is the use case to drive adoption.
To your point though most of Chainlink’s current activity is tied to crypto-asset prices, not the broader use cases mentioned (such as weather oracles). I suspect this is due to the more lucrative short-term returns available from speculation vs other use cases.
I love the potential of crypto but would like to see more real-world use-cases. I suspect they will come in time and that short-term speculation is the use case to drive adoption.
[deleted]
The questions that you fail to address is what problem this "distributed consensus" is solving and what advantages and disadvantages has compared to existing solutions.
Distributed consensus eliminates a whole host of problems associated with centralized middlemen.
For example, with Bitcoin the rules of the system are transparent to all participants and cannot be changed by any single party. 21 million coins is the limit and the emission rate is fixed. With traditional fiat, no one can promise or predict the supply or debasement rate this year, next year or ten years from now.
For example, with Bitcoin the rules of the system are transparent to all participants and cannot be changed by any single party. 21 million coins is the limit and the emission rate is fixed. With traditional fiat, no one can promise or predict the supply or debasement rate this year, next year or ten years from now.
> Distributed consensus eliminates a whole host of problems associated with centralized middlemen.
Which ones?
> With traditional fiat, no one can promise or predict the supply or debasement rate this year, next year or ten years from now.
Nobody wants to predict the supply. What people want to predict is the inflation rate, and the inflation rate is only predictable when you have a central bank.
Which ones?
> With traditional fiat, no one can promise or predict the supply or debasement rate this year, next year or ten years from now.
Nobody wants to predict the supply. What people want to predict is the inflation rate, and the inflation rate is only predictable when you have a central bank.
My comment provided the first example (currency supply and debasement rate) but you then go on to claim that nobody wants those things.
I want those things as do others so objectively your claim is false.
Also your claim that inflation rate is only predictable when you have a central bank is just plain silly. It makes no sense.
I want those things as do others so objectively your claim is false.
Also your claim that inflation rate is only predictable when you have a central bank is just plain silly. It makes no sense.
You said there are a "whole host of problems associated with centralized middlemen" but the only "problem" you mention is the unpredictability of the money supply in fiat currencies, which, leaving aside whether it's even a problem, it certainly isn't representative of a set of problems "associated with centralized middlemen".
And the claim that the inflation rate is unpredictable in the absence of an adaptive monetary policy is not controversial among economists, as far as I know. If you think such a claim is "plain silly" and that it "makes no sense" maybe you need to explain why.
And the claim that the inflation rate is unpredictable in the absence of an adaptive monetary policy is not controversial among economists, as far as I know. If you think such a claim is "plain silly" and that it "makes no sense" maybe you need to explain why.
I’ll stick to the problems that Bitcoin solves as I know that space better than Ethereum.
Bitcoin solves a whole host of problems:
- hard currency with fixed supply that cannot be inflated by any individual no matter how powerful
- fixed emission (debasement) rate that can be calculated for the next 100 years and beyond
- the ability to self-custody a digital store of value (no KYC required) the owner of the private key is the owner, no questions asked
- censorship-resistant payments that know no borders and are not subject to political whims of a particular country
- runs on proof-of-work rather than proof-of-violence such as the US dollar which requires the backing of the most powerful military-industrial complex known to man to protect it’s value. By contrast Bitcoin currently consumes less than half the electricity of YouTube to secure and protect over half a trillion dollars.
- it works 24/7 and never takes a bank holiday
- it is designed from the ground up to withstand direct attacks from nation-states without a standing army ready to go to war to protect it.
- It allows us to achieve Distribute Consensus without a central party (Rules without Rulers)
I could go on but I trust I’ve made my point.
Bitcoin solves a whole host of problems:
- hard currency with fixed supply that cannot be inflated by any individual no matter how powerful
- fixed emission (debasement) rate that can be calculated for the next 100 years and beyond
- the ability to self-custody a digital store of value (no KYC required) the owner of the private key is the owner, no questions asked
- censorship-resistant payments that know no borders and are not subject to political whims of a particular country
- runs on proof-of-work rather than proof-of-violence such as the US dollar which requires the backing of the most powerful military-industrial complex known to man to protect it’s value. By contrast Bitcoin currently consumes less than half the electricity of YouTube to secure and protect over half a trillion dollars.
- it works 24/7 and never takes a bank holiday
- it is designed from the ground up to withstand direct attacks from nation-states without a standing army ready to go to war to protect it.
- It allows us to achieve Distribute Consensus without a central party (Rules without Rulers)
I could go on but I trust I’ve made my point.
IIRC, the question was what problems does distributed consensus solve.
Per my comment above, every single point addresses the question of what problem distributed consensus solves as none of these points are possible without distributed consensus.
Bitcoin was used for the examples as it and the Blockchain it is built upon are the original distributed consensus protocol.
I suspect you already knew that but may be having difficulty admitting that I have made my case and that your position might be wrong.
Bitcoin was used for the examples as it and the Blockchain it is built upon are the original distributed consensus protocol.
I suspect you already knew that but may be having difficulty admitting that I have made my case and that your position might be wrong.
No, none of the points addresses the question.
How is
> it works 24/7 and never takes a bank holiday
a problem? That's not a problem. That's a feature of some system.
And what "distributed consensus" has to do with it is even more mysterious.
How is
> it works 24/7 and never takes a bank holiday
a problem? That's not a problem. That's a feature of some system.
And what "distributed consensus" has to do with it is even more mysterious.
I see you can cherry-pick but can you address the many many other valid points I raised?
Also, explain how a bank that is only open during banking hours say 8 hours/5 days per week/250 days per year is better for consumers than a system open 24 hours/7 days per week/365 days per year. How is that a feature for the consumer?
Also, explain how a bank that is only open during banking hours say 8 hours/5 days per week/250 days per year is better for consumers than a system open 24 hours/7 days per week/365 days per year. How is that a feature for the consumer?
None of the points are examples of problems that are solved by a distributed consensus. I could go over the points one by one, but that doesn't strike me as a productive use of my time.
The world and society at large has seen an erosion of trust.
For the naysayers, ask yourself:
- do you trust your government more or less than your parents
- do you trust the mainstream media more or less than your parents
- do you trust big companies to do the right thing more or less than your parents
As we culturally become less trusting, we need different tools to organize and determine value. Protocols that enable decentralized, distributed consensus helps build those tools. Adoption of these protocols, independent of cryptocurrency mania, is bound to happen.
For the naysayers, ask yourself:
- do you trust your government more or less than your parents
- do you trust the mainstream media more or less than your parents
- do you trust big companies to do the right thing more or less than your parents
As we culturally become less trusting, we need different tools to organize and determine value. Protocols that enable decentralized, distributed consensus helps build those tools. Adoption of these protocols, independent of cryptocurrency mania, is bound to happen.
My parents' generation was far too trusting of the government. The government is just as trustworthy as it was then, but we're aware of some of what it's up to now. I still trust the FDIC and CFPB to protect my interests more than cryptocurrency pushers.
There cannot be economy without trust. There cannot be society. You wouldn't be able to function normally. Imagine walking past a stranger and not having a reasonable expectation that that they won't punch you in the face.
I trust crypto developers and users even less than I trust those other things.
I believe open source software is now the most trusted segment of society. (Prior to a few years ago, I’d say peer reviewed science, but the replication crisis has not been kind to its image.) Most people in the know probably trust Linus and the kernel team far more than the intelligence team or Vitalik more than Janet Yellen or Postgres more than Oracle or Wikipedia more than Harvard.
To that extent there’s going to be a major push, where practically feasible, to replace existing institutions with open software and protocols. Trust is more efficient, and trusted entities will long-term outcompete untrusted.
The technology doesn’t yet exist, but if you could replace JP Morgan with a DAO, how does JP Morgan not watch its business crumble. Why would any stakeholder choose to trust an opaque bank over an open protocol?
To that extent there’s going to be a major push, where practically feasible, to replace existing institutions with open software and protocols. Trust is more efficient, and trusted entities will long-term outcompete untrusted.
The technology doesn’t yet exist, but if you could replace JP Morgan with a DAO, how does JP Morgan not watch its business crumble. Why would any stakeholder choose to trust an opaque bank over an open protocol?
Rating services seem to help. If my hotel gets 9/10 on the site it's usually good. Crypto on the other hand seems mostly ponzi scam.
I’m frequently suspicious of the veracity of ratings online.
> Peter Thiel has made the characteristically sweeping observation that AI is in some sense a left wing idea — centralized machines making top-down decisions — but crypto is a right wing idea — many distributed agents, humans and bots, making bottom-up decisions.
I enjoy philosophical discussions as much as the next person, but this kind of sweeping postmodern categorical generalisations just smell like a new Sokal affair.
I enjoy philosophical discussions as much as the next person, but this kind of sweeping postmodern categorical generalisations just smell like a new Sokal affair.
For everybody saying cryptocurrency has no use, you must not remember how much trouble society had envisioning the uses for the very internet upon which we are now posting.
Here's an example of a use case recently gaining ground. https://mobile.twitter.com/BrantlyMillegan/status/1402388133...
I don't have a crystal ball, but it seems foolish and short-sighted to imagine we are certain that there are no legitimate uses for crypto.
Here's an example of a use case recently gaining ground. https://mobile.twitter.com/BrantlyMillegan/status/1402388133...
I don't have a crystal ball, but it seems foolish and short-sighted to imagine we are certain that there are no legitimate uses for crypto.
The internet took like a year to take off since it became commercially available.
It took the world by storm once people could connect to it, and viable and useful ideas and applications (browsers, search engines, eCommerce, filesharing, etc) proliferated at breakneck speed.
It took the world by storm once people could connect to it, and viable and useful ideas and applications (browsers, search engines, eCommerce, filesharing, etc) proliferated at breakneck speed.
I think the way Crypto bulls sell this analogy is flawed.
Internet had no competition from any other industry. It was nothing like anything that ever existed. In terms of Internet's development itself, we went from dial up to optical fibers. People in 21st century who use internet have no idea about pains of dial up connection.
Crypto is replacing something that has existed for centuries - the financial system. The financial system being challenged has itself kept up with changing tech, albeit slower than expected. This system is corrupted, exploitative and doesn't provide equal opportunities to all who use it. Crypto has to better the existing system by making things better. But the main point is, crypto itself is the next evolution of financial industry. Internet was a new industry of its own.
Internet had no competition from any other industry. It was nothing like anything that ever existed. In terms of Internet's development itself, we went from dial up to optical fibers. People in 21st century who use internet have no idea about pains of dial up connection.
Crypto is replacing something that has existed for centuries - the financial system. The financial system being challenged has itself kept up with changing tech, albeit slower than expected. This system is corrupted, exploitative and doesn't provide equal opportunities to all who use it. Crypto has to better the existing system by making things better. But the main point is, crypto itself is the next evolution of financial industry. Internet was a new industry of its own.
The mobile phone industry was also deeply entrenched back in 2007, it still got disrupted wildly within a few years with the iPhone.
If Crypto is so revolutionary, it should have resulted in radical changes within the entrenched financial industry. All we've seen is regression (Stripe supported bitcoins from 2014[0]-2018[1] for eg).
[0]: https://stripe.com/blog/bitcoin-the-stripe-perspective
[1]: https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support
If Crypto is so revolutionary, it should have resulted in radical changes within the entrenched financial industry. All we've seen is regression (Stripe supported bitcoins from 2014[0]-2018[1] for eg).
[0]: https://stripe.com/blog/bitcoin-the-stripe-perspective
[1]: https://stripe.com/blog/ending-bitcoin-support
>All we've seen is regression
That's what happens when you only look at Stripe. smh.
Pretty sure every major financial institution is buying crypto because it's obviously superior to the dying and corrupt printer and fax system.
That's what happens when you only look at Stripe. smh.
Pretty sure every major financial institution is buying crypto because it's obviously superior to the dying and corrupt printer and fax system.
The internet was a communications medium, and not an industry. When it became big enough, it spawned an industry of Big Tech companies. Crypto in this example is the new financial medium. The industry that could be birthed perhaps doesn't exist yet.
It might feel like this but it is anything but true. Prodigy was available in the early 90s and the age of 286 computers. AOL and compuserve were available very early too and for years their uses were email, online encyclopedias, looking up jpegs and eventually chat rooms. Lots of people saw no need for it in the dialup days. It took a decade for the first cable connections to become available.
Right now cryptocurrencies have taken off to an extent. Everyone knows about them but the eco system is a giant mess.
Right now cryptocurrencies have taken off to an extent. Everyone knows about them but the eco system is a giant mess.
> It might feel like this but it is anything but true. Prodigy was available in the early 90s and the age of 286 computers.
Amazon was launched in 94. My dad was buying books from Barnes and Noble and Amazon and having them sent internationally around 96. By the end of the 90s the internet had 250M users carrying out all kinds of activities, including commercial.
The comparison with crypto just does not stand its ground. It's been 13 years and counting and there is barely anything to show for it except a lucky few people riding Lambos.
[1] https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_internetxfcstx2017.htm
Amazon was launched in 94. My dad was buying books from Barnes and Noble and Amazon and having them sent internationally around 96. By the end of the 90s the internet had 250M users carrying out all kinds of activities, including commercial.
The comparison with crypto just does not stand its ground. It's been 13 years and counting and there is barely anything to show for it except a lucky few people riding Lambos.
[1] https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_internetxfcstx2017.htm
8 years ago I was buying from tigerdirect, newegg and overstock. Bitcoin being crippled to only a few transactions per second for the entire world set things back a good amount which was probably a big part of the point in doing it.
https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-u...
https://markets.businessinsider.com/currencies/news/crypto-u...
[deleted]
The internet did not take a year to take off. AOL for DOS was released in 1991, and the dot com bust want for another decade. I guess it depends what you mean by "take off", but I'm old enough to remember that in the late 90s, the internet was very poorly understood by most people, and while experts predicted it would be the engine of our economy eventually, your average person couldn't see it.
My dad in Spain, which was an internet backwater back in the day, was buying books from Barnes & Noble circa 96. I was downloading songs off Napster around 98.
The dot com bust, which was around 99/00, was a build-up of huge economic expectations around the internet indeed. Granted that this bubble was mostly caused supply-side (many companies barely had users), but the internet as a whole had millions and millions of users, ~250M circa 99 [1], carrying out all sorts of activities.
Whether most end-users were aware of its true potential is irrelevant - the comparison to crypto, both in terms of timelines (13 years and counting with few applications to show for it) and usefulness, is preposterous.
[1] https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_internetxfcstx2017.htm
The dot com bust, which was around 99/00, was a build-up of huge economic expectations around the internet indeed. Granted that this bubble was mostly caused supply-side (many companies barely had users), but the internet as a whole had millions and millions of users, ~250M circa 99 [1], carrying out all sorts of activities.
Whether most end-users were aware of its true potential is irrelevant - the comparison to crypto, both in terms of timelines (13 years and counting with few applications to show for it) and usefulness, is preposterous.
[1] https://stats.areppim.com/stats/stats_internetxfcstx2017.htm
There's also the fact that product-lifecycles have become incredibly short these days. Airlines took 68 years to get to 50M users, Mobile Phones 12 years, the Internet took 7 years, and Pokemon Go got there in 19 days[0].
We're at 12 years of Crypto and "a tech of the future" is now an increasingly difficult proposition to make as we're nowhere near real usecases.
[0]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-hi...
We're at 12 years of Crypto and "a tech of the future" is now an increasingly difficult proposition to make as we're nowhere near real usecases.
[0]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/how-long-does-it-take-to-hi...
Cherrypicked examples. How long did SpaceX take to land a rocket on Mars?
Edit: Also, no response to the SSO use case I shared??
Edit: Also, no response to the SSO use case I shared??
I am so unbelievably sick of hearing this from bitcoiners.
It just isn't true. At all. There is zero comparison to be made between crypto and the early Internet, its incredibly dishonest.
It just isn't true. At all. There is zero comparison to be made between crypto and the early Internet, its incredibly dishonest.
The bit that it's hard to foresee all the uses might have some truth. Like tiktok - I didn't see that coming. Or crypto itself which kind of depends on the internet.
Email was immediately useful.
[deleted]
TLDR version: "crypto" will turn everything upside down somehow, but we will have to wait at least 30 years to see it.
Thiel said that “if AI is communist, crypto is libertarian.” He didn’t say “right vs. left” and Andreessen is misquoting him, either deliberately or on purpose.
This is an ahistorical and backwards analogy. Historically the left/right political divide goes back to the French revolution where the rights side of their parliament supported the monarchy and the left opposed. From this perspective AI would seem more centralized, authoritarian, and right-wing, while open networks are more democratic, distributed, and left-wing.
In the US we never had that battle. We had Federalists (more aligned with a stronger federal government) vs Antifederalists (more aligned with weaker federal government and pushed for the bill of rights to limit government power). Neither one wanted or ever pushed for authoritarianism. It's about individual rights vs local vs national government, and how much authority is delegated to the national body. I think right vs left is an overused and over-simplistic tool for analyzing modern politics, especially across various cultures.
In the US, higher small business tax rates are championed solely by the left. This fact is more accurate in characterizing left/right centralized authoritarianism than tech metaphors ever could.
Is there someone out there campaigning on "increase taxes on small business"? I think this is a strawman, "tax the rich" doesn't mean "tax the corner baker".
Nobody says "let's tax the corner baker", but often will advocate for tax policies that would negatively impact that baker in the name of taxing the "rich".
IDK how is it in the US, but where I live, additional regulations are more of a burden than taxation per se, and compliance with new regulations is usually easier for established big players than for the corner bakers.
This is true in the US too, but reducing taxation is easier than reducing regulation. That said the same rings true for regulation as it is predominately a weapon used by the left
the corner baker is a llc last I checked
Meaning? You do realize corporate taxes are also marginal, yes?
Marginal for you, but not for the baker. Unless you too think 21%(+ about 9% in Cali) isn’t marginal. That doesn’t include all the misc taxes which push your overall rate of doing business closer to 50%. That’s just the llc(baker) rate
I’m glad I’m not the only one who thought that seemed exactly backwards. Even with a cursory understanding of history, the extreme right wing regimes are considered fascist, aka extremely top down.
Considering the best faith argument here, I’m guessing he’s seeing the “right wing” being pro business as opposed to a pro government “left”, and in that view, business is considered “bottom up”. As you alluded to, though, this ignores a lot of actual historical and political context and seems more driven by punditry shorthand.
Considering the best faith argument here, I’m guessing he’s seeing the “right wing” being pro business as opposed to a pro government “left”, and in that view, business is considered “bottom up”. As you alluded to, though, this ignores a lot of actual historical and political context and seems more driven by punditry shorthand.
> Even with a cursory understanding of history, the extreme right wing regimes are considered fascist, aka extremely top down.
IMHO the political spectrum has a circular topology where extreme left and extreme right merge into one point. As an illustration, consider Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union:
* Extremely brutal top-down dictatorship.
* Suppression of all dissent by means of secrete police (Gestapo vs NKVD).
* Single party rule (nazi party vs communist party)
* No meaningful elections.
Of course, there were many differences and nuances but the power structure was surprisingly similar.
EDIT: bullet formatting
IMHO the political spectrum has a circular topology where extreme left and extreme right merge into one point. As an illustration, consider Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Soviet Union:
* Extremely brutal top-down dictatorship.
* Suppression of all dissent by means of secrete police (Gestapo vs NKVD).
* Single party rule (nazi party vs communist party)
* No meaningful elections.
Of course, there were many differences and nuances but the power structure was surprisingly similar.
EDIT: bullet formatting
You're describing authoritarianism which is inherently right-wing. Both Hitler and Stalin were anti-democratic right-wingers.
The left-wing has always been anti-authoritarian.
A better comparison would be like Hitler versus Emma Goldman.
The left-wing has always been anti-authoritarian.
A better comparison would be like Hitler versus Emma Goldman.
Perhaps a more likely split would be along authoritarian/libertarian lines.
That said, early enthusiasts notwithstanding, the majority of businesses are likely far more interested in the profit potential than political or ideological aspects of technology.
That said, early enthusiasts notwithstanding, the majority of businesses are likely far more interested in the profit potential than political or ideological aspects of technology.
Even so, the libertarian right is a much more recent beast than the libertarian left. The latter predates the former by over 100years.
White a pile of horse manure. Big Tech is run by stinkin' liberals which is why they aren't pushing cryptocurrencies? Here's an alternative hypothesis: cryptocurrencies have thus far proven to be good for nothing at all and, as a result, technology companies looking to create actual value have avoided crypto until some value can be found.
It's not some liberal plot that cryptocurrencies are mostly usable as a way to separate the gullible from their money.
It's not some liberal plot that cryptocurrencies are mostly usable as a way to separate the gullible from their money.
This seems silly. Is Coinbase not part of “big tech”? It’s literally a $50 billion tech company.
So far the only mass use-case for crypto has been speculation, so the only success story being Coinbase is fitting.
And fraud/scams.
> So far the only mass use-case for crypto has been speculation...
so you can't send crypto to another person?
i'm confused.
to downvoters:
When you say the mass use case, you mean everyone is using crypto to scam each other?
So there is absolutely no other good usecase for crypto and we should ban it completely?
so you can't send crypto to another person?
i'm confused.
to downvoters:
When you say the mass use case, you mean everyone is using crypto to scam each other?
So there is absolutely no other good usecase for crypto and we should ban it completely?
So there is absolutely no other good usecase for crypto and we should ban it completely?
I don’t think we should ban everything that has no valid use case. Maybe someone will come up with one eventually. For now, it’s all get rich quick all the time.
I don’t think we should ban everything that has no valid use case. Maybe someone will come up with one eventually. For now, it’s all get rich quick all the time.
Well, Binance has been banned in the UK (Biggest crypto exchange in volume) so I don't see why we should stop there if the only usecase is 'scams', 'fraud' and 'ransomware'.
They just can't set up a specific UK exchange. UK residents can still use binance.
It's telling that the single example anyone can think of is an exchange, essentially the casino where currency speculation is played out.
The biggest tech companies have a market cap of around 2 trillion USD, so it seem reasonable that a company with a "mere" 2.5% valuation of the big corps is not "big tech" TBH. This says more about how humongous FAANG is than about the size of coinbase though.
CoinBase isn't going anywhere and it's board isn't politically connected left nor right. You can tell that big-tech is investing via coinbase by blockchain analysis and thus making it's value rise overall. Coinbase being used for large whale wallet sizes of these firms bloats its value. As long as the firms do not dump their BTC coinbase won't have any issue.
Also consider the transaction fees it charges for every btc trade. They're going to be around for awhile.
Also consider the transaction fees it charges for every btc trade. They're going to be around for awhile.
Per the article, Andresseen doesn't seem to think so.
And generally I doubt the usefulness in classifying things into right and left.
At the polar ends of each are people that have conflicting norms on how the world should work. These usually arise once again through ignorance as a norm carries the expectation to be accepted by everyone.
To someone that has worked in the tech of cryptocurrency, all I'm saying is that I'm not particularily interested in the left/right drama. Let's hope it never catches on.
In my opinion these narratives are just created because somehow they'll serve Thiel and Andreessen to run a more specific story that they can use to increase their wealth.