[dmitriid]

> But when you dig a bit deeper, you'll find that there is true technical and financial innovation.

Ah yes. The good old "just google it". There's literally not a single "dig deeper" resource on the internet that explains the need for blockchains/cryptocurrencies etc.

But sure, there are a lot of "innovations" with recursive circular "innovations" (like currency speculation, HFT and flash loans, all of "innovatively made available" by regurgutating the same fatasy tokens and pretending they are worth something)

[olalonde]

> Ah yes. The good old "just google it". There's literally not a single "dig deeper" resource on the internet that explains the need for blockchains/cryptocurrencies etc.

I just named a rather massive one in my comment.

[dmitriid]

> I just named a rather massive one in my comment.

Do you mean this one? " For me, Bitcoin's potential to be a programmable money without government or central authority is a very powerful idea."

It's really isn't a true technical and financial innovation.

So, you have a slow and inefficient VM that runs an esoteric programming language, and all this VM allows you to do is exchange fictional tokens whose primary value is derived from ... trading fictional tokens. That's all there is to this great amazing innovative idea.

> The idea that you can be your own bank and do p2p electronic money transfers without an intermediary. That has never been possible before.

Of course it has. Never on this scale, true, but "I will print my own money that you can only use in these specific circumstances, otherwise you have to convert it to actual money at severe discount/penalties" is probably as old as the world itself.

Also, there are reasons intermediaries exist.

[Kbelicius]

> I just named a rather massive one in my comment.

You named one that was envisioned by the creator(s) of Bitcoins 13 years ago and was subsequently abandoned. Today bitcoin is marketed as a store of value, not money. Also the idea that it is a P2P money without intermediaries is laughable. What are miners other than intermediaries in a transaction?

[dmitriid]

> What are miners other than intermediaries in a transaction?

Additionally:

What is "programmable money" without programmers writing unverifiable undebuggable code in esoteric languages other than intermediaries that you have to trust?

- https://web3isgoinggreat.com?id=2021-12-04-2

- https://web3isgoinggreat.com?id=2021-12-18-0

etc.

[olalonde]

Sorry to be blunt, but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin. Miners are not "intermediaries" and it is possible to send/receive Bitcoin with any regular programming language.

The links you posted refer to Ethereum smart contracts which are indeed prone to programming errors. The tooling around them is improving (e.g. debuggers, verifiers) and there are a couple of multi-billion dollar smart contracts which have stood the test of time.

[Kbelicius]

> Sorry to be blunt, but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin.

Sorry to be blunt but you are demonstrating your poor reading skills.

> Miners are not "intermediaries"

I have some bitcoin. How do I send them to you without miners?

> it is possible to send/receive Bitcoin with any regular programming language.

dmitriid was talking about, what you called, "programmable money" and not about sending/receiving bitcoin. You don't need knowledge of any programming language to do that.

[olalonde]

Ah I see the confusion now. By intermediary I meant "trusted intermediary" (e.g. like PayPal, Visa, a bank, etc.).

[dmitriid]

> but you both demonstrate a poor technical understanding of Bitcoin.

No, we don't

> smart contracts which are indeed prone to programming errors.

Indeed. So. In the context of "potential to be a programmable money without government or central authority" you literally have to depend on an intermediary to write a smart contract and depen on that intermediary to write this contract correctly.

> The tooling around them is improving (e.g. debuggers, verifiers) and there are a couple of multi-billion dollar smart contracts which have stood the test of time.

Either all this is "too early" or "it has stood the test of time". You can't have both.

The fact that some contract exists, and handles "multiple billions" in no way, shape, or form disprove my original statement: "Programmable money" relies on intermediaries in the form of programmers writing unverifiable undebuggable code in esoteric languages

[landemva]

' Programmable CARS relies on intermediaries in the form of programmers writing unverifiable undebuggable code in esoteric languages. '

I am also skeptical of the current state of programming in autonomous cars. It's buggy and not perfect today. Even the code in anti-lock brakes is unverifiable and esoteric. /s

Maybe new technologies take time to develop?

[olalonde]

If you think those problems cannot be solved, I understand your skepticism. I don't share this pessimism however.