I think the future impact of truly game-changing technologies (e.g. the smartphone) was immediately clear to geeks from the beginning. How is that the case for the blockchain? I've heard 100s of pitches about it and I still have no idea how it is supposed to matter
-
-
Replying to @fchollet
Obviously. My point is that the delusional character of some descriptions of it have a little bit of signal deep inside
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @benedictevans
Not sure that's true. Game-changing tech will generally get hyped up in delusional ways (though not always), but inversely many things that get hyped to the moon don't actually end up being important...
3 replies 1 retweet 16 likes -
Replying to @fchollet
The common thread is radical and powerful decentralization. You can see that it is here but not see where it will be applied.
3 replies 2 retweets 16 likes -
Replying to @benedictevans
Wasn't radical decentralization also a key pitch for IoT in the late 2000s/early 2010s?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @fchollet @benedictevans
One more thing about this parallel -- many argue the importance of the blockchain by comparing it to the Internet (the "next Internet"). But that was the exact same comparison used for IoT -- it's right in the name
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @fchollet @benedictevans
This argument by analogy is unconvincing because comparing distributed ledger technology to IoT is like comparing TCP/IP to the iPhone. Do you have a first principles argument to root the discussion? :)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I'm just saying that not everything that gets heralded as the next internet turns out to be the next internet. Sometimes there's signal in the hype, sometimes the hype is a collective delusion. It's problem-solving and value-added, not hype, that should drive tech
2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
If you think blockchain adds unique value and will enable new solutions to important problems, then more power to you. You may well be right, I'm not arguing you're wrong.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
I will just note that the money flowing into the field is not being guided by the value-added and the problem-solving. It's 99% hype-following and short-term speculation. If you're different, I respect that. But this is where my skepticism comes from
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like
When I see real-world use cases and real value added (rather than abstract keyword-based pitches), I will revise my opinion. Please prove my skepticism wrong.
-
-
The point is that even it has 5% chance to be the "next internet" that would probably justify the capital deployed and hype. Won't you agree? Following are some good logical bull cases imo: http://gavwood.com/web3lt.html https://goo.gl/M9eesV
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Btw I think AI and ML are much more important development, like hands down. They are trends for decades as opposed to just fashion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.