[52-6F-62]

Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing.

Anecdotally, centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past. It’s starting to look like a bit of a wash to me—not that I’m racing to close my accounts. Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on.

[root_axis]

> Forgive me, but you haven’t been very convincing.

I don't need to convince anyone; it is a self-evident truth that cryptocurrency is wholly impractical for displacing centralized institutions. It's self-evident because it hasn't happened and there isn't even a whiff of a possibility that it could. Cryptocurrencies are a strange and interesting technical novelty, but they are closer to a video game than anything resembling a challenge to currently centralized institutions.

> centralized institutions have broken many peoples’ trust in the past

You keep repeating that but its irrelevant. Whether or not centralized institutions are breaking people's trust, cryptocurrency is obviously not a solution to the problem.

> not that I’m racing to close my accounts

Of course you're not because cryptocurrency is obviously not an alternative to a bank account in the same way that a drone is not an alternative to a car.

> Just the same, I’m not ready to write off an early tech that is still being developed and experimented on.

I'm not telling you to "write off" anything, what does that even mean? If you want to close all your bank accounts and meet up with people in the streets to trade cryptocurrency tokens in order to manage typical financial obligations then that is your prerogative; it doesn't mean that such a lifestyle has any appreciable impact on the existence of centralized institutions.

[52-6F-62]

I think you're taking a lot of liberties in your assumptions about what I've said, and what the technology is or is about.

It seems to stem from one strain of thought surrounding the tech, implied by your use of "cryptocurrency" as the new descriptor and not focusing on the concept of smart contracts.

For the record, I never suggested trading cryptocurrencies as a medium for barter and exchange was a practical or desirable idea.

One viable use, currently implemented and being tested, is the use of smart contracts as an immutable record for tracking grants and other funding provided to organizations by the National Research Council of Canada:

Prototype: https://nrc-cnrc.explorecatena.com/en

It's not as self-evident to me as it might be to you—that's not really an explanation. You're quite aggressive in your disdain for this specific technology—I'm kind of baffled.

[root_axis]

I'm just going to ignore all the ad-hominem comments about my "strain of thought" and your perception of my feelings towards cryptocurrency. Lets stick to the topic at hand.

Pulling this quote directly from the page you linked:

> This technology offers unprecedented levels of transparency and trust allowing public records to be searched, verified and audited at a level the world hasn’t seen before.

This is just false. What was not possible before? The page has no details just breathless hype that is typical of cryptocurrency related projects. Please offer up an explanation of how blockchain enables "public records to be searched, verified and audited at a level the world hasn’t seen before"

[52-6F-62]

There was no ad hominem. I wasn't referring to your thinking. I was explicitly referring to the strain of thought that sees blockchain tech/smart contract tech as an all-in-or-nothing decentralized libertarian cryptocurrency dream. I can understand criticisms of that way of thinking. I don't see it that way, but many of your arguments seem to presuppose I do.

> This is just false. What was not possible before? The page has no details just breathless hype that is typical of cryptocurrency related projects. Please offer up an explanation of how blockchain enables "public records to be searched, verified and audited at a level the world hasn’t seen before"

You haven't explained how it's false.

It makes the public records easier to access than they previously were, and immutable. Once published, the council nor any new government can wipe the records for any reason without either a concerted effort to attack the public chain and cause a fork that becomes mainstream, or otherwise attempt to eradicate the network entirely. There is much less gatekeeping now than there previously. One doesn't have to be technical, nor do much searching to find these records. (They actually came in handy somewhat recently in discussions about TunnelBear and their funding ploys) And as mentioned, it's an experiment. The experiment is part of the Open Government project aimed at increasing transparency to the public.

[root_axis]

> It makes the public records easier to access than they previously were

You have not demonstrated how this is so. Putting the records up on S3 is sufficient for the purpose of access.

> immutable

Immutability has no practical benefits that were not already possible using cryptographic hashing and signatures. If you disagree, please explain.

> Once published, the council nor any new government can wipe the records for any reason

This is already solved by the inherent decentralization of the internet. This inherent property of the internet is so pervasive that it is actually a serious problem for situations like "right to be forgotten" and revenge porn.

> The experiment is part of the Open Government project aimed at increasing transparency to the public

You don't need smart contracts for this, if a government is willing to be open the problem is already solved, smart contracts don't add anything to the mix.

[52-6F-62]

> You have not demonstrated how this is so. Putting the records up on S3 is sufficient for the purpose of access.

That's a matter of choice, isn't it? I just demonstrated how easily accessible it was. Just because there's another method available, doesn't mean this one isn't valid.

> Immutability has no practical benefits that were not already possible using cryptographic hashing and signatures. If you disagree, please explain.

That's exactly what the smart contract and blockchain system used does. It's just another vehicle that functions in a different way than just signing the files and uploading them to a server somewhere.

> This is already solved by the inherent decentralization of the internet. This inherent property of the internet is so pervasive that it is actually a serious problem for situations like "right to be forgotten" and revenge porn.

No. That ultimately relies on the proactive efforts of others making and serving unadulterated copies of the data in question. In the form the council is experimenting with, no additional conscious action is required. The copies are made perpetually as long as the network exists. I consider that a boon for data like this.

> You don't need smart contracts for this, if a government is willing to be open the problem is already solved, smart contracts don't add anything to the mix.

You say that they're not needed. The role of the National Research Council is to research and experiment in all manners, including new technologies. That is what they're doing here. It's not a question of "was it ever needed in any form"— it's a question of: is it an improvement? Do we see benefits or detriments? Are the results net positive or net negative? And what next?

There is one way to empirically answer that question: experiment, gather data, and draw analyses and conclusions.

You continually ask me to explain myself, and I have—you've however yet to explain your assertions.