Almost every “Show HN” that’s about a library has someone ask what the library actually does and why is it useful. If the only answer is “crpyto” and essentially all crypto is fraud, I can’t imagine why people aren’t more excited.
I think vague promises is exactly how you could sum up most crypto-related libraries as well. There’s supposedly some useful usecase, but right now it only contributes to North Korean nuclear program.
Nakamoto consensus (the combination of longest chain rule for consensus and PoW for sybil resistance) was a minor innovation in distributed computing, specifically state machine replication. That had previously been solved in the late 1990s in the permissioned setting with BFT-type protocols (such as PBFT).
What's new in crypto is permissionlessness which enables decentralisation [1]. That has
a) basically no benefits that cannot be achieved through (permissioned) distributed computing, except censorship resistance, or, as normal people call it, regulation dodging, and
b) it comes at enormous costs (in terms of inefficiency, cumbersomeness, etc.)
Crypto is systematically and inherently designed for and suitable for crime.
[1] You can claim that LCR also expanded the design space in the partially synchronous model from always consistent and eventually available to always available and eventually consistent, but again, not a huge benefit.
so, your main supposition about crypto being all fraud is inaccurate, and the standards you present apply to fields you respect as well. for example, north korean expropriation and fraud is happening across the entire tech space, even a bunch of remote roles in the US are and were filled with north koreans, hence supporting the nuclear program [1]
this is a common theme I’ve seen that reinforced my perspective: the criticism applies to things the critic respects and the critic saying it doesn't seem to know that, and they also don’t seem to even be aware of other benign things in the crypto space that are working fine and fit the social contract of all participants. I don't know if thats you, but it is applicable to the responses you chose
so that observation, in combination with how so many intelligent researchers and programmers take a different approach ultimately towards improving the crypto space due to its malleability, keeps me interested and confused by the unsubstantive and reductive nature of HN consensus on this one topic
> so, your main supposition about crypto being all fraud is inaccurate
Sure, but what are some actual generally useful non-fraud uses? I know Marc Andreesen failed to come up with a single credible one after investing billions into the industry.
> for example, north korean expropriation and fraud is happening across the entire tech space, even a bunch of remote roles in the US are and were filled with north koreans, hence supporting the nuclear program
The difference is again the share of North Koreans working remotely in the US tech industry vs the amount of fraud in crypto.
the use cases for me are where DTCC and the transfer agent industry are disintermediated as an option for people that want an option, and there are a lot of competitors trying different approaches using distributed ledgers. that's useful for me and I use that every day, and I don't expect financial plumbing to be "actual generally useful" to everyone else. most people go their entire lives unaware of DTCC and the transfer agent industry.
the settlement time of 1 block is great for me.
chaining transactions within 1 block creates trading opportunities that are otherwise reserved for banks participating in the Overnight Reverse Repurchase Agreement facility
I don't really think you not being the target audience is an "actual useful" goal post to determine whether something is worth discussing on a tech forum, since the question is about non-fraud, but your bar is something that has to then be debated per use case based on whether you unilaterally derive utility from that.
the observation is that there is a group of people that have caked yourself in layers of news only about fraud, and my observation is that that's not the only news there is. that's the aberration in this tech community that's otherwise more discerning, I mean - crypto people are absolutely here - the contributors to all those parts of the stack are here and have been for over a decade. Brian Armstrong initially posted about Coinbase here. Its just the consensus is odd and has only chiseled away, while people have continued to build and grow the industry just in other forums.
> The difference is again the share of North Koreans working remotely in the US tech industry vs the amount of fraud in crypto.
Why is Marc Andreesen the voice of cryptocurrencies? He is ONE voice. A loud one for sure, one I do not like either, but he's got no more authority than a random joe in Indonesia, for example.
I think vague promises is exactly how you could sum up most crypto-related libraries as well. There’s supposedly some useful usecase, but right now it only contributes to North Korean nuclear program.