[hmrtn]

Unfortunately this article provides almost no substance on blockchain or it's related technology. HN does not seem to mind as long as it is even remotely critical of anything crypto-related.

It would be nice to discuss the actual implications of the technology, critical or not, without such strong opinions interfering.

[chrisco255]

Agreed. I think HN's general sentiment against blockchain and crypto is completely counter to the hacker mentality that PG promoted. And it's frustrating, because this is one of the most intellectually stimulating communities on the web. And I see crypto developments rapidly becoming the most disruptive technology of this decade, if not century and we can't discuss it without bikeshedding. Seems to me like there might be a market for an HN-like community that is focused on crypto tech and developments exclusively (and I don't think Reddit or Twitter quite fill the same niche that HN does).

[Rule35]

I'm mostly pro-blockchain but I understand the HN stance because every crappy idea has its pumpers who will defy logic and reason and they infest everywhere that doesn't delete them. It's asymmetrical, they make millions by pumping crap and you lose by either reading it or having to take the time to delete it.

Until the legit blockchain space can call out scams (from Iota to Tether) the entire thing is rightly tainted.

That said, you can generally get a good discussion of a type of tech (ie, NFTs for concert tickets) if you avoid the branded implementations (that are always trying to sell some crappy token for use with the idea.)

[rorykoehler]

Why is Iota a scam?

[wmf]

The technology (ternary) is crackpot and it's centralized. Their plan to decentralize is both technically flawed and unrealistic because they aren't competent enough to execute it.

[rorykoehler]

There are 2 types of blockchain enthusiasts. One are in it to get rich quick and blockchain is only their current vehicle for that endeavour. The other are actually into from a tech and society perspective. The prior group ruin it for the latter.

[twiceaday]

You are not witnessing normal conversations. You are witnessing engagement on blockchain articles that are themselves only popular whenever the coins are skyrocketing in price. That is the context most of the time. Even though the articles often spend little time on the price. Similarly, the anti-narrative usually attempts to refute the technology but is benefiting from the "this price is nonsense don't purchase this" crowd. And for me, "I am holding coins and writing / promoting positive articles" seems like the slimier position. I love the tech and absolutely hate the profit motive. It is very easy for me to see "pro tech" arguments as just pumping. The tech has almost nothing to do with the price. The tech establishes that a non-zero price can exist, the rest is people manipulation.

[verdverm]

http://www.paulgraham.com/gba.html

Not sure blockchain fits the way PG defined "hacker." Blockchain needs to be more rigorous in implementation due to being in finance and its target preference with malicious hackers.

[chrisco255]

From your article:

"It's called a hack when you do something in an ugly way. But when you do something so clever that you somehow beat the system, that's also called a hack. The word is used more often in the former than the latter sense, probably because ugly solutions are more common than brilliant ones.

Believe it or not, the two senses of "hack" are also connected. Ugly and imaginative solutions have something in common: they both break the rules. And there is a gradual continuum between rule breaking that's merely ugly (using duct tape to attach something to your bike) and rule breaking that is brilliantly imaginative (discarding Euclidean space)."

Cryptocurrencies and blockchain platforms are nothing if not rule-breaking and brilliantly imaginative. They're trying to rewrite the entire financial system as code on the blockchain. Can you think of a more brilliant hack than that? Satoshi created the idea of digital scarcity. And the crypto world is running with it. That's clever as hell.

[verdverm]

Except they really aren't that break through and imaginative. We had Merkel Trees, distributed algos, and consensus mechanisms beforehand. All the Satoshi paper did was to really solve the double spend problem by making people solve trival problems over and over. Hackers see this as wasteful as tech and as a societal contribution. We can build better systems that aren't as wasteful using proven methods. Keep in mind, here is not proof that staking will actually work, only proof of work has a proof.

Taking a small quote from the article that aligns with what you want to be cool doesn't make it so. In the end, for most people, blockchain will be like ACH or some internal system that a bank wrote. The entire financial system is not going on the blockchain, it's not replacing the dollar. Wait to see how the Digital Yuan plays out.

Keep pumping the fantasy tho, my diamond hands can hodl quite a bit.

---

From Paul's article

Those in authority tend to be annoyed by hackers' general attitude of disobedience. But that disobedience is a byproduct of the qualities that make them good programmers. They may laugh at the CEO when he talks in generic corporate newspeech, but they also laugh at someone who tells them a certain problem can't be solved. Suppress one, and you suppress the other.

This attitude is sometimes affected. Sometimes young programmers notice the eccentricities of eminent hackers and decide to adopt some of their own in order to seem smarter. The fake version is not merely annoying; the prickly attitude of these posers can actually slow the process of innovation.

---

Maybe pause to think about why HN has changed their attitude on blockchain from 2017. Pause, listen, and think

[jules-jules]

Let’s do it!

I’ve mostly been coming to HN articles on crypto for the entertainment value only but it’s getting better - slowly.

[barnabee]

I’d be interested in this

[DennisP]

I didn't really see it as being critical of blockchains in general. It's just comparing two blockchain technologies and pointing out that one has a more level playing field.