| counterpoint: engineers building complicated things /and then looking for a problem they would solve/ is bad. if you are unable to easily explain it to a human who isn't your profession, it's snake oil. what's a tooth filling? it's a bio-safe, quick setting, similar plasticity to your teeth enamel. what's shipping logistics software? it's not wasting an idle or half empty truck. what's S3? durable object storage. what's the TLS certificate transparency chain? an append only, low power proof of what the CA's issued. No blockchains or smart contracts involved because it's less expensive and less absurd. what's sigstore? an append only, low power signing proof of binaries, docker images, git commits, etc. No blockchains or smart contracts involved because it's less expensive and less absurd. Too many blockchains and smart contracts and such seek to be "the engine" that everything runs on. They want web 3.0 because they want a do-over to be kingmakers. what's HTTP/HTML? a simple way to exchange data between webservers & web browsers, the universal engine. |
The idea that something needs to be simple to be legitimate is not a good one. Some things simply are complex and to say otherwise is to over-simplify them. Or reductionist. Much of the ground work requires questioning assumptions that people are already familiar with and accepted as true. Like the trust assumption in banking.
I can tell you first hand that when I pitched my blockchain startup back in 2013 the very first stumbling block I had was even getting people to understand Bitcoin. So go ahead and tell me that a large, in-depth field must mean its invalid. I think that's a silly idea.