| A little more than a year ago I went to a conference on blockchains. [it makes my blood boil how IBM has gotten people to say "cloud", "blockchain", etc. Even people who think IBM is pants will still talk like babies when these subjects come around] One clear thing to me was that Ethereum had no security story. Well, it has a story for the security of the base challenge, an actually interesting story that if you have five different implementations that are evenly used, a hole in one of them won't affect the whole system (unless it reaches 50% adoption.) However there is no security story for applications built on Ethereum. Thus the DAO hack, the ICO hacks, etc. Experience shows that you can't trust the run-of-the-mill programmer to get that kind of thing right, and you certainly can't trust bankers, traders, and fin-tech brogrammers! There are also interesting reasons why blockchains were only developed lately. If you went to a distributed computing conference and presented a paper about a distributed system which did not improve it's ability to handle workload at all when you add more nodes, you'd get laughed out of the room. And then there are the people who talk about "fiat currency" and who think that Bitcoin is like gold. Bitcoin is not like gold. People wanted gold 4000 years ago and they will want it 4000 years from now unless we are extinct or unless we find an asteroid which is made of solid gold. No way are people going to want Bitcoin 4000 years from now. |
Do you mean that they got people to start using these terms as mass (like "water") or abstract (like "love") nouns without articles?