[DyslexicAtheist]

if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to. The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air, big techno-gobble-dygook and made up words invented to dazzle an ignorant audience.

But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what we have. And they're left with peddling NFT's, cryptokitties or MLM scams a la Dr. Ruja's "OneCoin". It's been "wE aWe vEWy close to bweakthrough" from the Ethereum grifters Buterin & Woods since the first time their garbage polluted the air.

The people at IOTA have been selling homeopathic crypto since "Kerl" and "Curl-P" while insisting that collusion resistance isn't the main goal of a hash function. Until today no explanation what has happened to their deals with CISCO, Volkswagen and Microsoft which they one day announced were implementing IOTA in their products (there was no such thing and these companies didn't know anything about these claims).

Craig Wright super-grifter continues to claim he is Satoshi and hoping he can bend reality into believing that 2+2=5 instead of simply signing a message with the old key.

There are 2 types of people in crypto: the scammers and the suckers, and sometimes they overlap because once you start believing your own scam to be reality it's only a matter of time until you're somebody else's mark.

that said,

bitcoin is a great technology for drug markets so that addicts no longer have to risk their lives with products where there is no review. It's the next best thing to legalizing drugs in societies that are still far away from that.

there are very few applications where blockchains make sense (e-sports and games, the SWIFT banking "backend"). Yet even for those a central database is a better technological, and business fit than coins and blockchains while also not being as environmentally damaging.

If all the crypto ecosystem would disappear all at once today nobody would notice (other than some people with aggressive investing habits losing their value). The world would literally just shrug and move on.

[unmole]

> if Web3 were such a success they would cease talking about the future and simply show us _the_ killer app that everyone would immediately jump to.

Or, in the immortal words of Linus Torvalds, "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."

[DyslexicAtheist]

> "Talk is cheap. Show me the code."

this is such an important razor[1]:

denouncing NFTs is good and honorable

here are some tips to help you on your scam-prevention journey: - 'power usage/environment' is a trap, people will goalpost move you on about proof of stake. - try to focus on what they do, which is nothing, but badly, while scamming

[1] https://twitter.com/chhopsky/status/1468658745819287556

[rvz]

Exactly. Most of all these cryptocurrencies have failed and they will not survive regulations if they were to come in.

> there are very few applications where blockchains make sense (e-sports and games, the SWIFT banking "backend"). Yet even for those a central database is a better technological, and business fit than coins and blockchains while also not being as environmentally damaging.

The banks will just use Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) instead and will pick either XRP, Stellar, etc to use for that purpose.

[cableshaft]

Most cryptocurrencies failing is not an argument against them.

Most startups fail too (90% in 2019 according to Investopedia[1]). Does that mean no one should invest in, work on, or give a chance to any startups?

[1]: https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/04091...

[rvz]

> Most cryptocurrencies failing is not an argument against them.

My whole comment already implies utility in cryptocurrencies - directly towards payments and towards the parent especially if cryptocurrency regulations were to come in the long term. (with examples)

Tons of other cryptocurrencies are going to fail once regulations arrive and realistically, those that have no serious use-case in general other than being meme or hype coins will wither away.

[cableshaft]

I guess we're not actually in disagreement then.

[DyslexicAtheist]

[off topic] addendum[1]:

A software engineer sits in a bar with a no-coiner and a socialist. A genie appears granting them a wish each.

The no-coiner wishes for all crypto & crypto-bros to be gone. His wish is granted. Nobody mentions crypto any more. The no-coiner drinks up and staggers home happy.

The socialist demands for all the billionaires to pay their taxes. His wish is granted and there are no more billionaires.

Finally the genie turns to the software engineer: "and what is your wish?"

The software engineer thinks for a while then says:

"So you're telling me all the billionaires are gone because everyone started paying taxes?", "Yepp" the genie replies.

You're also telling me that all #crypto bros are gone and nobody anymore talks about crypto, #NFT's or #blockchain? "Yepp" the genie goes again.

Software engineer turns to the barman and says:

"Well I guess I'll have a coke then".

[1] https://twitter.com/phishermensfoe/status/147322937195572019...

[nootropicat]

>And they're left with peddling NFT's

Literally every argument against image NFTs is also an argument against art. Art is not a yield producing asset. Just like NFTs can be right-clicked and saved, indistinguishable to the naked eye reproductions of expensive paintings can be ordered relatively cheaply. The idea of the 'original' is a social abstraction, just like the idea of who's the real owner of a NFT is a social abstraction.

Exactly like physical art, image NFTs are fueled by a desire to own status symbols and the eternal need to launder money, in unknown proportions. They are objectively better than physical art at both. They are better status symbols because it's easier to show other people that you own expensive NFTs than it is with real art. It's enough if your ethereum address is publicly known and it's there. There's no fraud possible. With real art, you have to go out of your way to show it - maybe by inviting others to your home, but then they may wonder whether it's real or a reproduction. For money laundering it's way easier to sell NFTs for big amounts anonymously than real art.

Those two fundamental properties also make it somewhat of an investment, if you can predict what people belonging to one, or both, of those groups are going to want in the future.

For those two reasons physical art is going to be less and less important.

>The "Web2" would be an empty space pretty soon. Yet it hasn't happened despite over a decade of hot-air

Considering your knowledge of such details as iota's hash functions, it's clear you're being intentionally misleading. Ethereum is 6 years old, and the technology to scale to global levels - zkrollups - only started to arrive in 2021.

[malermeister]

> Literally every argument against image NFTs is also an argument against art.

It is not. It's an argument against capitalism. Don't conflate them, there's art outside of capitalism, too.

[bko]

> But there is no such thing as a killer feature that can't be done better with what we have

When someone figures out how to custody financial assets on the blockchain (e.g. stocks, bonds, etc), then you can create exchanges that aren't regulated and are open 24-7. You can also create contracts that mimic synthetic derivatives.

Sure you may not like the idea but you don't have to use those exchanges. And sure things could blow up for some people, but if done correctly you wouldn't have counterparty risk and no cascading series of failures. And there would be much less appetite for bailouts if things do explode due to the murky legality and pseudonymity.

The legal and regulatory framework prevents financial innovation. Could it be done better offchain? Sure, just completely rewrite the laws

[malermeister]

That sounds exactly like

> "wE aWe vEWy close to bweakthrough"

as described by parent.

[bko]

No, it's just some legal entity that is bound by law to hold those securities in a trust that is legally owned by the contract. This is how stable coins work, although tether holds assets not necessarily the underlying currency. But other stable coins hold 1:1 reserves based on the currency they're meant to track.

Its centralized sure, the company could f up or commit fraud but there would likely be best standards and multiple options.

[anaganisk]

So basically its just the same old system with a new database?

[bko]

Did you read my original comment?

> When someone figures out how to custody financial assets on the blockchain (e.g. stocks, bonds, etc), then you can create exchanges that aren't regulated and are open 24-7.

The databases are outside of the purview of the state, so they're able to get around restrictions. Why can't you gamble online, depending on the state you're in? Why can't I send money to people in Iran? Why can't I invest in a start up if I'm not accredited?

[anaganisk]

What you are describing are regulatory hurdles, do you think MySQL automatically shuts down at 9PM? Do you think stock markets dont function on holidays because, their software refuses to? Do u think govts will silently and watch while people are exercising their will on blockchain. Brother we’ve gone thru that already. Its called the internet, internet was decentralised and unregulated. Once govts and corporates started sniffing money and propaganda. It became Ad Powered, regulated, censored and controlled. Whats stopping ethereum from being taken over by US and run only smart contracts allowed by them. All pipe dreams with optimism and failure to learn from past. For me blockchain fintech is just a clumsy database for a solved problem.