|
|
|
|
|
by adim86
1619 days ago
|
|
I find the article disappointing. I would say this article itself is not what it says it is. Its title is written in click-bait fashion in that they are about to reveal something we don't know about blockchain technology and then the first paragraphs are written in the tone that they realize theoretically blockchain technology ideally runs a certain way but they want to tell us how it runs today and then proceeds to bash the implementation of the technology today even though they realize it probably wont work that way in the future. It is like bashing the internet of not fulfilling the potential people pitched about it in the 90s. Blockchain is currently in the dail up stage of the internet, it is centralized, slow and needs adoption and lots of man hours to unleash its potential. There are second and third order effects that need to actualize before the "dream" of blockchain technology can be realised. The article purports the lack of this actualisation of the blockchain dream as if we are being deceived. It's like when people bashed Tesla and said it wont work because there were not enough charging stations across the USA, as if world changing technologies are realized in a day. I find it boring that people push these kind of articles as think pieces. We can do better |
|
Tesla built a network of chargers to fix that problem. They didn't hand-wave it away with "it probably won't work that way in the future" - they came up with a real plan of action and executed on it. After that a lot of the skeptics came around.
The same is true for cryptocurrencies and NFTs I imagine. When devs in that industry come up with a workable solution and execute it people will change their minds. Until that happens it's entirely fair and reasonable to say that cryptocurrencies and NFTs have some serious problems, and claiming "it probably wont work that way in the future" is not an answer.
You can't just ignore problems by saying they're not problems. That doesn't work.