|
|
|
|
|
|
by darawk
2927 days ago
|
|
|
> Even if blockchain DNS systems were production quality - which they're far from That's not an argument against building something... > which they're far from - why is a 'central authority' inherently bad? They're not. Sometimes you want a central authority, and sometimes you don't. Both modes can be good. But previously central authorities were necessary due to the physics of DNS. Blockchain enables a new mode. Now the two modes can compete, and we can reach a new equilibrium with both, or one can win out. That's what's cool about it. |
|
|
At which point did I argue building things is bad? I actually took a lot of time to learn Ethereum smart contract development just to get to the bottom of the whole blockchain ecosystem. Learning and building are almost never bad things.
I'm not bashing the idea of competition between blockchain and traditional centralized authorities either. I'm extremely pro-competition. I'm bashing the fact that all - yes, all - blockchain applications provide negative value compared to their traditional counterparts. The argument that blockchain enthusiasts use to justify their support for such low-quality infrastructure is this philosophy that having no centralized authority is, by itself, valuable. This is what I'm bashing.