| > I've seen tons of people trying to explain the current state of it and a lot of them do the exact same thing but in reverse: falling back on very basic mistakes made by the specific design of Bitcoin and taking that as a given of how they need to design systems. I've seen a lot of people make that mistake too. A whole ton. But you can't tell me that you form your opinions on new technologies based on listening to people explain them poorly and try to shoehorn them where they don't belong. > Everyone who talks about energy usage, scaling, and the oracle problem in this way is missing that these problems could have been entirely avoided by just not using blockchains in the first place. They could have been avoided, yes, but someone chose to solve them so now they're solved. I don't really understand your point. Are you saying that nobody should have been allowed to solve those problems? > The sense of struggle and "progression" here is entirely made up. It's unclear to me what you mean by "sense of struggle". But a decade ago the technology had several unfavorable properties and limitations, and now it no longer has those certain unfavorable properties and limitations. Is that not progress? > You're repeating the same mistake as the critics by even talking about these things. What mistake am I making, why is it the same as blockchain critics, and why am I making such a mistake by talking about the quality of the forum discussions I participate in? > The fact that the discussion is even framed in these terms as if these problems need to be solved I don't frame things that way; I don't view most things in the world as "problems needing to be solved". What I do see is processes that can be streamlined through the use of certain technologies. I don't necessarily believe that this RFC is helpful, or that blockchain is a useful technology in the context of BGP, but you're making a sweeping statement about the nature of all discussion of blockchain technology, a statement that I believe to be overgeneralized and essentially incorrect. > in some particularly obscure fashion Many of the systems that blockchains aim to improve on are already particularly obscure. Naming systems, ownership registries, and financial derivatives come to mind. But more fundamentally, the complexity of a system's software implementation does not directly correlate with its utility as you seem to imply. Plenty of software projects out there are very complex, yet still manage to be very useful. > Because it is actually useless. None of your comment really supports this conclusion. |