|
|
|
|
|
|
by flagrant_taco
1121 days ago
|
|
|
> IMO block gains are the closest but it's so difficult to mention them because 98% of them are money-grabs git is a really popular blockchain, though I guess GitHub seeking to Microsoft may further the money-grab argument |
|
|
I mean what people call "blockchain" in the cryptocurrency sense as actual projects - there's so much stigma largely because the motivation of most of the projects appears to be "making money/investing" and not actually solving a technical problem appropriately.
If github was like this there would be a "fee" for making making commits, this fee would be paid in some proprietary coin, initially created with an ICO/airdrop. Suddenly the motivation is holding these coins because developers will need to make commits right? And the more developers that make commits the more the coin is worth, so surely you should buy and hold them right? This will be a feedback loop of endless money! Oh and it'll be a DAO so the more coins the more voting power you get too!
^ This is what I mean, where the focus is on collecting some "coin/token" - this leads to both a lack of focus on the actual problem being solved, and the problem of people associating it with a ponzi scheme.
I'm not picking a fight with distributed graphs themselves, I don't like it when they're tightly coupled with "value" that can be traded as a fiat.