Big jump in Bitcoin...

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
@Leo : You're misleading matters. The statement that you quote had a question mark at the end of it - that you've shaved off.

And your last statement - more semantics. If you answered the question directly in the first place other than to say that you referred to blockchain tech on previous instances, then there would be no room for confusion.
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,453
Taking a deep breath and diving into this rabbit hole;)
T, I did not say it has NO utility. I seem to recall from the last time this theological dispute surfaced about 18 months ago that I would put its utility on a par with the Arch Lever file to which I think I was corrected to Lever Arch file, and to be sure the LAF has been a great boon to lawyers' offices across the globe. But compared to GPS, Air Travel, Satellite Television, Internet search engines, sliced bread, and of course the sheer beauty that is a Ferrari, it just does not cut it for me. I fully accept that others see it on a par with these amazing technologies.
But the origin of this current rabbit hole was not in fact my dispute as to its utility but my surprise that some actually find the basic algorithm a thing of beauty. I think even Satoshi would have come up with something better if she had known that things would turn out the way they have. As I understand it, and it is a while since I examined the details, the outlandish intensity of the algorithm is not because that is what is required to secure the blockchain but because it is needed to slow down the miners. I presume Satoshi never thought mining would be so lucrative with a bitcoin being worth thousands of dollars.
 
Last edited:

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,376
@Leo : You're misleading matters. The statement that you quote had a question mark at the end of it - that you've shaved off.
So on semantics, then it was a question and not a statement. I wasn't in doubt that it was a question, and as quoted in my last post, I answered that question. You then sad that answer was 'telling me not to do something I didn't do? '.

And your last statement - more semantics. If you answered the question directly in the first place other than to say that you referred to blockchain tech on previous instances, then there would be no room for confusion.
You seemed to have missed the fact that I did answer the question, the reference to previous posts was merely further emphasis.

So again, where did I say blockchain was progressive?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
So on semantics, then it was a question and not a statement. I wasn't in doubt that it was a question, and as quoted in my last post, I answered that question. You then sad that answer was 'telling me not to do something I didn't do? '.
You want to continue on with the semantics and hyperbole, then on we go I guess.
Picking this up from post #134 onwards, where did you state directly in support of blockchain technology?

You seemed to have missed the fact that I did answer the question,
Where is that direct statement?
So again, where did I say blockchain was progressive?
It's the very same answer as before. I don't really respect you coming on with this nonsense when you failed to make a direct statement. It had to be teased out of you - and then you start on me for the use of a certain adjective.
If you want to continue going round in circles, on we go.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
T, I did not say it has NO utility. I seem to recall from the last time this theological dispute surfaced about 18 months ago that I would put its utility on a par with the Arch Lever file to which I think I was corrected to Lever Arch file, and to be sure the LAF has been a great boon to lawyers' offices across the globe. But compared to GPS, Air Travel, Satellite Television, Internet search engines, sliced bread, and of course the sheer beauty that is a Ferrari, it just does not cut it for me. I fully accept that others see it on a par with these amazing technologies.
I guess you have not seen the extent of its utility - and perhaps its because a lot of that utility will go unnoticed by ordinary people (despite being highly significant). Placing it on the level of a LAF could only mean you're missing most of that utility and use case.

But the origin of this current rabbit hole was not in fact my dispute as to its utility but my surprise that some actually find the basic algorithm a thing of beauty. I think even Satoshi would have come up with something better if she had known that things would turn out the way they have. As I understand it, and it is a while since I examined the details, the outlandish intensity of the algorithm is not because that is what is required to secure the blockchain but because it is needed to slow down the miners. I presume Satoshi never thought mining would be so lucrative with a bitcoin being worth thousands of dollars.
That consensus mechanism - whilst controversial - provides for a network that has never been offline since inception and never been hacked. Why would you even care about how it works? What difference does it make so long as it achieves what it sets out to achieve?
 

Duke of Marmalade

Frequent Poster
Messages
2,453
That consensus mechanism - whilst controversial - provides for a network that has never been offline since inception and never been hacked. Why would you even care about how it works? What difference does it make so long as it achieves what it sets out to achieve?
Dearie me these blog debates can be so frustrating. It is probably my fault but you have completely missed my arguments. I have drawn a clear distinction between its utility and its inner works. Its utility is modest IMHO compared to some of the technologies I have cited. Its inner workings are downright ugly IMHO. My point was that some people are bowled over like yourself by its utility whilst some (nerds, though I don't think yourself) regard the algorithm as a thing of beauty.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,376
You want to continue on with the semantics and hyperbole, then on we go I guess.
Picking this up from post #134 onwards, where did you state directly in support of blockchain technology?
You keep misunderstanding me for some reason, so I'll keep trying...

In post #138, I said you were wrong to surmise that I thought blockchain had no utility. How is that not clear?

Where is that direct statement?
Again, see above.

It's the very same answer as before. I don't really respect you coming on with this nonsense when you failed to make a direct statement. It had to be teased out of you ....
It's in my second post, that's teasing it out of me?
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
Dearie me these blog debates can be so frustrating. It is probably my fault but you have completely missed my arguments. I have drawn a clear distinction between its utility and its inner works. Its utility is modest IMHO compared to some of the technologies I have cited. Its inner workings are downright ugly IMHO. My point was that some people are bowled over like yourself by its utility whilst some (nerds, though I don't think yourself) regard the algorithm as a thing of beauty.
I don't think there's any misunderstanding. We disagree on the extent of the utility of blockchain technology. i.e. the notion that it is so limited as to have the utility / impact akin to a LAF is something I disagree with. As regards to what extent I'm 'bowled over', that remains to be seen. I have an interest in and I'm excited about other technologies too including but not limited to AR/VR/AI, etc.
In terms of the 'beauty' of an algorithm, what does that even mean? It is functional and is key in contributed to a system that provides for an immutable, secure public ledger. Nothing 'sexy' about that at all - but it has implications in terms of use case. ..and If I am to see any 'beauty' its in terms of utlimate use case.
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
@Leo - you made no direct statement in support of blockchain technology from post no. 134 onwards. Now, I'd suggest we park this up - as going round in semantic circles is not going to benefit anyone. However, if you want to continue, then we will continue as I don't tend to leave any discussion unanswered.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,376
I guess you have not seen the extent of its utility - and perhaps its because a lot of that utility will go unnoticed by ordinary people (despite being highly significant).
Blockchain has been around in various guises since the early '90s. It's hype soared with the inception and subsequent scramble to get on-board the Bitcoin craze It has attracted massive investment from some of the biggest players in technology, there are quite a few applications live outside the crypto space, but such applications are never likely to challenge the Duke's example of GPS in terms of utility that some seem to think it will achieve.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,376
@Leo - you made no direct statement in support of blockchain technology from post no. 134 onwards. Now, I'd suggest we park this up - as going round in semantic circles is not going to benefit anyone. However, if you want to continue, then we will continue as I don't tend to leave any discussion unanswered.
My correction is a direct statement, it contains a negative, but it is still a direct statement.

Blockchain has utility = to state blockchain has no utility is incorrect!
 

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
Blockchain has been around in various guises since the early '90s. It's hype soared with the inception and subsequent scramble to get on-board the Bitcoin craze It has attracted massive investment from some of the biggest players in technology, there are quite a few applications live outside the crypto space, but such applications are never likely to challenge the Duke's example of GPS in terms of utility that some seem to think it will achieve.
All technologies suffer from a hype cycle. AI/VR/AR/IoT have been knocking around quite some time also...and suffer the same hype cycle. Utility is in the eyes of the beholder. Many of the use cases for blockchain will go unnoticed by ordinary people. Are there technologies that will have or have had greater impact? Probably (and I'll stick with probably until the whole tech gets unpacked in the final analysis). In terms of Bitcoin and its implication as a store of value/currency/unit of account - that potentially has far reaching implications. Of course, you can assume that it will get nowhere with that suggested utility (and maybe you will be right but I'm not in any way accepting that as guaranteed outcome right now). However, should it gain traction, you're talking about a change in the way we exchange/trade value - which is a fundamental cornerstone of human activity.

Quite happy to consider it not being the most impactful technology to come along but to put it on a par with the LAF is a long way wide of the mark.
My correction is a direct statement, it contains a negative, but it is still a direct statement.

Blockchain has utility = to state blockchain has no utility is incorrect!
Ah, a direct statement to the negative. Right, Leo.
 

Leo

Moderator
Messages
10,376
All technologies suffer from a hype cycle. AI/VR/AR/IoT have been knocking around quite some time also...and suffer the same hype cycle. Utility is in the eyes of the beholder.
The hype cycle thing does happen a lot of technologies alright, VR/ AR certainly caught people's imaginations, but it was perceived utility that drove the hype in those cases. Blockchain though didn't really excite too many people until Bitcoin came along and got a lot of people excited about how it was going to make them rich. I disagree with utility being in the eye of the beholder though, utility should always have a measure. If it can't be measured, it's something else.

Many of the use cases for blockchain will go unnoticed by ordinary people. Are there technologies that will have or have had greater impact? Probably (and I'll stick with probably until the whole tech gets unpacked in the final analysis).
As a concept, blockchain isn't at all complex, it is a very neat idea that has come of age as the internet has developed, and has multiple applications, but I don't rate it that highly in terms of technological achievements.

In terms of Bitcoin and its implication as a store of value/currency/unit of account - that potentially has far reaching implications. Of course, you can assume that it will get nowhere with that suggested utility (and maybe you will be right but I'm not in any way accepting that as guaranteed outcome right now). However, should it gain traction, you're talking about a change in the way we exchange/trade value - which is a fundamental cornerstone of human activity.
I'm on record here (that phrase again :)) saying I don't believe Bitcoin will be successful and will ultimately fail, I base that on my understanding of its technical constraints and limitations, which I find a little on the crude side. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, we'll see how that prediction will fare in time. That's not to say cryptocurrency will never take off, just that I don't believe Bitcoin will be the solution if and when it does.

Again, it comes back to the utility, what problem are we trying to resolve. I share the Antonopulos view that crypto could solve a very significant problem in situations like people living in corrupt states where governments or the banking system cannot be trusted. But for the majority of the world, we can already transact with pretty much anyone else we choose at very low cost and with instant confirmation, and significant consumer protections when things go wrong. So I don't see what value it has to offer me as a currency.

Quite happy to consider it not being the most impactful technology to come along but to put it on a par with the LAF is a long way wide of the mark.
I'd put blockchain well ahead of LAF too, maybe someone filing all day might differ, but I'm a technology guy, and think paper filing is outdated.

Ah, a direct statement to the negative. Right, Leo.
Basic arithmetic, negative x negative = positive :D
 
Last edited:

tecate

Frequent Poster
Messages
566
Blockchain though didn't really excite too many people until Bitcoin came along and got a lot of people excited about how it was going to make them rich. I disagree with utility being in the eye of the beholder though, utility should always have a measure. If it can't be measured, it's something else.
A huge amount of froth and noise around BTC/Crypto when it comes to the greed component. Agreed. It's not in any way a 'sexy' tech. It's quite boring but it can and is finding use cases in many fields. The majority implicate business processes - not mass market applications. Society can benefit from that - but clearly not as directly as some other technologies. If it's deemed to be less significant in terms of impact as opposed to Technologies B, C or D - I'm not going to object to that. I don't really care. The point is that it's still a relevant tech with some use cases already in play, many at pilot stage and more as yet unclear/undeveloped.

As a concept, blockchain isn't at all complex, it is a very neat idea that has come of age as the internet has developed, and has multiple applications, but I don't rate it that highly in terms of technological achievements.
It's incredibly lacking in complexity upon initial consideration. It's an immutable, public database.. Again, I don't really care where it ranks in terms of technological achievements. I mean, what would the metric be for that anyway? Depends on what's important to you. It's still a highly significant tech. On that metric, Jobs wasn't at the races but he brought about change due in large parts to simplicity.

I'm on record here (that phrase again :)) saying I don't believe Bitcoin will be successful and will ultimately fail, I base that on my understanding of its technical constraints and limitations, which I find a little on the crude side. I've been wrong before, I'll be wrong again, we'll see how that prediction will fare in time. That's not to say cryptocurrency will never take off, just that I don't believe Bitcoin will be the solution if and when it does.
That's speculative - and is open to debate both within and outside of crypto circles. As things stand, I think it will maintain and build on its position - but I can't say I'd be surprised if we revisit this in a couple of years and things have changed in that regard. At the moment, I see it's relevance staying on track but I reserve the right to change my mind on that one as things progress.

Again, it comes back to the utility, what problem are we trying to resolve. I share the Antonopulos view that crypto could solve a very significant problem in situations like people living in corrupt states where governments or the banking system cannot be trusted. But for the majority of the world, we can already transact with pretty much anyone else we choose at very low cost and with instant confirmation, and significant consumer protections when things go wrong. So I don't see what value it has to offer me as a currency.
Where there are people there are variables and whilst there are more pressing use cases in the developing world, we're not beyond benefiting from it closer to home. The most place I'd like to see blockchain tech being used is in all government systems - showing a complete trail of $. But of course, Turkey's don't vote for Christmas so we'll be waiting for that to filter in - for a long, long time to come. Look at the scandals we've had around charities in Ireland? And that's on our end. In the receiving countries, so much charity money and aid goes 'missing'. That's why the U.N. has been collaborating with a couple of the crypto projects to tackle that (as well as identity projects).
I could look at my last few years in Ireland and see that I'd have little use for crypto on a day to day basis - so no argument there. That said, in the last year, it would have been a tonic (but it's not ready yet either until it is being moved around in more volume). There's plenty wrong with the movement of money internationally from the perspectives of cost/time and this bureaucratic paperchase that's implicated in it (i.e. aml/kyc).

Other than that, given the opportunity (i.e. once volatility diminishes or a stablecoin exists that can be trusted), then I will custody my own money. I'm not having anyone lock an account or take funds from an account without my consent - or have a government or bank take that money. People think that sort of stuff doesn't happen in western countries but its only a short while ago we were ever so close to it.

Lastly, in terms of privacy, most people don't give a monkeys or they simply get jaded and give in to whatever the convention is. When cash goes (and regardless with what happens with decentralised crypto, someday soon there will be central bank digital currency), the details of every single transaction a citizen ever makes will be available to some cretin(s) in public administration and government bodies. Secondly, run into an issue with someone at that level and your entire wealth could simply be switched off in an instant. I don't see that as a healthy scenario.

I'd put blockchain well ahead of LAF too, maybe someone filing all day might differ, but I'm a technology guy, and think paper filing is outdated.
I'll take that as a 'progressive' move forward in the discussion. :-D
 
Last edited:
Top