> Your personality can completely change in 10 years.
This was kind of a revelation to me a long time ago. When you're 20, you're a totally different person than when you're 10. When you're 30, different than 20. Just like the linked article suggests, you really tend to underestimate how much you're going to change in the future. At 10, you can't really consider how you're going to be when you're 20.
The reverse is also true, people have a lot in common with who they were 10 years ago. It’s common for people to like many of the same songs at 60 that they did at 16.
I may be more skilled, better informed, and care a great deal about people who didn’t exist back then, but I think my basic personality is shockingly close to 10 year old me.
Not talking about Vitalik but about IPFS and about ENS:
- For IPFS see the other current thread on HN [1]
- For ENS I can say that it was and it is ridiculous. My company was relatively well known in the decentralized space when the ENS launched and obviously someone registered our name before us. This is not a support of the current DNS system but the "decentralized" nature didn't add any decentralized feature (e.g. DAOs) that enable you to protect your brand. It was decentralized as a bad anarchy is. This can be easily check on Reddit discussions about the issues I pointed. For example [2] and [3].
Regarding the other post I am lucky to know neiman personally.
Neiman is a PhD in mathematics and idealist. The solution he wants goes beyond just hosting a decentralized blog.
As far as ENS, I’m a fan. Though it’s too bad someone registered your well known business name you can always import your DNS into the ENS protocol (ENS is not the .eth extension, rather .eth is the native ENS blockchain extension but is reverse compatible with DNS).
Beyond your ad-hominem criticism on Neiman. I have used IPFS professionally and it is very slow. This issue is well known and gives an objective metric for the tool beyond idealisms. Extremely easy to check: [1] [2].
BTW, I come out with the paper "Is IPFS Ready for Decentralized Video Streaming?" [3] that could be an interesting read.
Neiman is a friend and inspiration. I specifically said I’m lucky to know him personally.
Calling him an idealist isn’t an attack, it’s admirable.
IPFS is fine for hosting blogs and static websites, I have 50 IPFS websites using a pinning service neiman cofounded. However, his blog post speaks for itself and his considerations are greater than whether IPFS/IPNS can host a blog.
His history of designing JavaScript, co-founding and CTO-ing the Mozilla project and being a general expert in coding and the web? Yeah screw this guy. No way he'll ever be able to develop a successful browser.
If you make your technical decisions based on, as far as I can tell from Wikipedia, 1 minor political disagreement with the project lead then you'll be as limited as Stallman when it comes to using a computer. That is an extreme position.
I don't fucking care about his political opinions, and I completely believe he is entitled for them and entitled to contribute to the causes he supports.
What all this small resentful and passive aggressive people did against Brendan was the only real shame on this history.
I'm a bisexual, in favour of marriage between arbitrary combinations of consenting adults(even if I have no interest in marriage myself), and I generally care about politics in tech when relevant.
I fail to see the relevance here.
Seems like he was forced out of Mozilla by a bunch of children who can't handle the fact that people have different opinions and perspectives. Even though I disagree with him on this particular issue, he was not the one acting wildly unprofessionally here. A brief look at his resume and the relative success of Brave as a company suggests he's perfectly qualified at his job.
To be clear, I'm not some Brave fanboy. I don't use Brave because it doesn't offer me anything I need that Firefox doesn't.
Brendan Eich's personal views have nothing to do with it.
Yeah, sorry for my lack of awe at 20 year olds wasting time with crypto and being seen as wunderkind. Now that my skepticism is through the roof with this blog, what exactly is anyone doing with synthetic biology that he mentions that’s interesting at the 20 year old hacker house level?
> When I met Vladimir Putin in 2017, I did not try to arrange the meeting; rather, someone else suggested it, and I pretty much said "ok sure".
> Now, five years later, I finally realized that (i) I had been complicit in legitimizing a genocidal dictator, and (ii) within the crypto space too, I no longer had the luxury of sitting back and letting mystical "other people" run the show.
Congrats on congratulating yourself on being the Benevolent dictator (in contrast with presumably genocidal dictator) and inventor of your own decentralised financial institution that enabled everything imaginable around money schemes, not matter how average and worst it is compared to regulated traditional banking. How much is you worth by the way ?
The author sums up everything that is wrong with crypto in two sentences:
> I was getting excited about every new cryptography protocol, and economics too seemed to me to be part of that broader worldview: it's the mathematical tool for understanding and figuring out how to improve the social world.
No, it isn't. This kind of hubris is what hides what Crypto is, which is a game of greater fools and nothing more.
Bitcoin has been around for 15 years at this point and there is absolutely no confusion about the technical underpinnings. It has handily survived attempts at government shutdowns in China and serious interest rate hikes. Numerous scams have come, gone and had no impact on hodlers.
At this point it is no longer reasonable to just claim it is a greater fools game without an argument for why. The evidence right now seems to put it in a similar category to gold in that people generally don't like that it has value, but nonetheless value is present.
I also draw people's attention to the parallel with something like a RAID array - it is possible to make robust systems out of unreliable parts. The abundance of scammy and scummy operators in the crypto space is quite consistent with the similar prevalence in traditional finance. The system is robust regardless.
I feel the comparison to gold is a bit of a reach. Gold is valuable because:
1. People see it as a store of value
2. It has some useful physical properties
3. People use it as a decoration
Possibly there are other reasons as well, but those are the ones that come immediately to mind. As far as I can tell, Bitcoin only shares attribute #1. It doesn’t have intrinsic properties that make it useful into larger systems (though perhaps we just haven’t found the right systems yet?), and people don’t feel it’s intrinsically valuable. Not to completely bash Bitcoin though — if enough people find it valuable it can become a useful way to exchange value. Right now it’s just pretty bad at that.
Crypto overall, including Bitcoin, have bunch of intrinsic properties. A lot of people just don't want to recognise them. It puts me in mind of the Sovereign citizen movement, and I expect it'll work just as well for them vs crypto as it did for the SovCits vs the US government.
* Can only pull new bitcoin into existence by paying a hefty market-determined price.
* Can transfer them iff you know a certain secret.
* Can verify that a certain number of bitcoin are linked to a specific secret.
* Can technically transfer bitcoin without approval from a legally blessed 3rd party
There is no asset outside of crypto with those properties. Turns out that combination is worth, so far, billions. Probably more as it settles in and people get used to the idea. Will Bitcoin last forever like gold? No. Will it last long enough? Looks like it. Is crypto valuable? Judgement is in, market says yes.
I also think Bitcoin and crypto generally have a lot in common with the sovereign citizen movement. But I think where you and I differ is that I think that’s a uniformly bad thing.
You can literally store it in your mind. A lot of people buy gold for when "Shit hits the fan". But in the end, it's better to flee a horrible place (think Russia or Hong Kong) with a bottle of water and $1M worth of bitcoin stored in your head.
People love to say this, but frankly it is so unrealistic as to border on untrue. It’s a lot to remember. And you can’t transact with “your head” alone, you still need to interface with a computer of sorts; in the event you’re fleeing it’s probably not so easy to purchase a hardware wallet or download the TB-scale blockchain.
Every single one of these shit coins had a bunch of founders that mined all the profit out of it on day one. Everybody else is a sucker, bitcoin included.
The underlying model is corrupt and nakedly stupid.
No, that quote is correct. Let me restate it in a way that may appeal more to pessimists:
Money is a form of mind control. You use money to get people, groups, institutions, to do what they normally wouldn't. Economics is the study of manipulating that power.
Cryptocurrencies would then be, or was supposed to be, about radically resetting economic priorities, in part by washing away the old incentives (by cutting the institutions that perpetuated them out of the money->behavior loop). It actually did manage this, to a limited and chagrin-inducing extent: 2-3 years ago, you could have convinced someone to pony up 2 year's worth of the average American's income for a picture of a cartoon monkey. Even today, people are paying "money" for digital art that they never would have a decade ago. The potential to have people value things differently because the means underlying that valuation had changed was there.
The issue, to my eye, is that the traditional financial "megaliths" (as he put it) sunk their claws in, with people on the inside ready to sell out the space to become filthy rich (only to be betrayed, both by their own hubris and the incumbent power structures). This is where your "game of greater fools" comes into play, as well as the oft-noted notion that Capitalism subsumes and commodifies everything it can.
> Economics is the study of manipulating that power.
Hello! Your friendly neighborhood economist here. Economics is the study of resource allocation under scarcity.
In your comment, I think you actually mean Game Theory and Mechanism Design, which are about assessing strategic behavior (Game Theory) and about creating mechanisms that align with strategic behavior to result in preferred outcomes (Mechanism Design, sort of the opposite approach to Game Theory).
Alternatively, based on your comment here:
> The potential to have people value things differently because the means underlying that valuation had changed was there.
you might find your thoughts more appropriately align to sociology and social psychology than economics, as economics doesn't care where your valuation or preferences come from--just that you have them.
If I'm wrong on this subject (and I would be interested in knowing how "resource allocation under scarcity" and "manipulation of the behavior of the people obtaining and using resources" are mutually exclusive), I might say that it's a product of the layman's (my) relationship to "economics" and "economists". The contact the most people have with economists is usually, "Talking heads or disembodied voices telling listeners how they should feel about developments in various markets that are connected to whether or not they'll be able to find their lifestyle affordable." The emphasis is decidedly on application, which I imagine runs into game theory and mechanism design, to the point where a reasonable observer might consider the latter two components of (applied?) economics. ...Which raises the question: DOES anyone subscribe to this model? What would an expert make of it?
>you might find your thoughts more appropriately align to sociology and social psychology than economics
Since economics is an emergent property of agents interacting with other agents and their environment, I'm failing to see how I'm misaligned with any of the three. I've heard economics described as "sociology with a veneer of statistics", which is something I can't say I'm unconvinced by. I respect your status as a relative expert, and also as someone close enough to the subject to have a conflict of interest in characterizing it fairly.
> Hello! Your friendly neighborhood economist here. Economics is the study of resource allocation under scarcity.
As an economist, would you be able to explain (because I truely do not understand) why "the study of resource allocation under scarcity" is more important than (and/or prevents) meaningful action on climate change?
> As an economist, would you be able to explain (because I truely do not understand) why "the study of resource allocation under scarcity" is more important than (and/or prevents) meaningful action on climate change?
For my case, it is quite simple -- people have different preferences and switching costs! I chose economics as a field of profession because I felt it explained human behavior much better than anything I'd come across in my life at the ripe old age of 21. Had I started my studies less than two decades ago, I would have invested more in physical sciences (especially hydrological saline exchange and improving soil quality through mycology, both fascinating problems some of my close friends study). This said, my data science company was founded two years ago to focus on impact problems in health, technology, and geopolitics, all of which are becoming more and more impacted by the effects of anthropogenic climate change in addition to just out and out pollution and bad policy effects.
But I think your first question is less why I personally studied computational economics and industrial organization, and more why economics exists when humanity may be facing a global extinction at worst and a loss of living standard at best. And the answer is: economics can be used to help with mitigation (and economists have been calling for effectual policy to address climate change for _decades_ through known effective policies like carbon markets, see subfields that research environmental economics and public economics).
Now, economics can also help understand why we see little meaningful action. Rational people (defined as being able to make comparisons between options presented to them, which simplifies analysis without much loss of generality to cases like bounded rationality) do not choose what is best for a collective (personal happiness/utility) nor what is best for them tomorrow (time inconsistency of preferences) when neither of those have meaningful impact to them today or in the near term. You see this all the time in the startup world and in the corporate world among VCs and executives who are only in things to accomplish short term goals. Self-organizing collective action is _hard_ to generate or maintain without enforcement of some kind.
To explain with a workhorse model regarding collective versus individual action, you can reference the stag hunt game: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stag_hunt. In short, while two individuals engaging for collective action will benefit more in total, there may be incentives to deviate from a collective strategy. People want more _now_, not 75 years from now (beyond the lifetime of the current living).
So TL;DR:
1. Preferences! Or, rather, subjective valuations of research topics by people can vary without applying presentism to near history
2. Because economics can explain failures in collective action, but it doesn't control or recommend against collective action goals. In fact, qualitative economic approaches to policy are often highly successful. So the gap on meaningful action is more related to political will and the incentive to deviate or adopt a policy that isn't Pareto improving.
Close. We pay money to use other people's times _and_ resources (capital) and outputs (widgets). Take Netflix. You watching a whole lot of Netflix for $400 a month (or whatever they are charging these days) doesn't make people work any differently than paying for it and not watching it, or, truth be told, not paying for it (as an individual), or, in the rare case, watching it without paying for it. Thanks to the magic of capital! You're paying Netflix for Video Content and Delivery systems, but their system exists and would probably work for a long time if they reduced staff significantly. (I'm not advocating Netflix fire people).
In short, we pay people both for their time, purchasing of objects, and for use of their assets (without commenting how how fair or unfair their capital acquisition practice was to this point).
Money is a means of exchange or unit of account that in its essence represents real value, such as your labor. It can be used much more like physical shackles than mind control. Because people need to eat, people need housing, that's not an illusion. And money isn't inherently bad, the mind control is in the part where they convinced a majority that it's ok for them to keep the key to everyone's shackles.
In the end all the ways Bitcoiners thought the system would come after them never happened. Ironically they got exactly what they wished for and what critics thought could never happen. Because the establishment has a much easier way to suffocate emerging uprisings: Buying off the leaders and incorporating the movement into the mainstream. Crypto has gotten assimilated.
ether, Ethereum's native token, is required to pay for computation on a computer with peculiar properties (publicly visible, unmodifiable, unstoppable code, uncensorable interaction). If somebody finds that useful, he will need ethers, and you will be able to sell them yours. How would he be a (greater) fool?
No one buys stocks for the hell of it, it is 100% a financial instrument used to profit by the buyer and the seller. If you couldn't sell to someone for a higher price, no one would buy them. If that's your bar, then cryptocurrencies are as legit as stocks as far as a financial tool is concerned. Stocks may arguably have more utility, but for the buyers/sellers, they aren't much more that a speculation instrument.
If someone will take Pokemon cards for a pizza, or a house, whatever, then it has some utility. If someone collects pokemon cards, and has enough for a house, they might (probably) need to exchange them for some real currency to complete that transaction. But pokemon cards are not inherently a scam.. just because the price can go up and down.. they are probably considered a collectable.
Now cryptocurrencies are not collectibles, and they are not currencies, but they have attributes of both I'd propose. They are entirely speculatory in nature, but can sometimes be used as a currency. So, in some ways, I argue, they should be treated like pokemon cards, in other ways, regarding regulation, they might need to be considered a currency to be able to regulate the industry in such a way that protects investors, just like private transactions (selling collectibles) and financial investing (trading stocks/etc) have regulations.
Although this is nuanced, and cryptocurrency is not currency or a collectible entirely, it is not inherently a 'greaters fools game' any more than trading stocks or Pokemon cards.
It's just another thing that needs to be regulated, and if people didn't use it for something, it would just go away, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
On another note, there is a lot of fud on cryptocurrency right now.. and let me say this.. there are farms of individuals, soon to be llm's, flooding the Internet with all this negativity on crypto in every conceivable public forum.
100%, this is politics now, when you see people online with a certain perspective, you tend to at least consider it. This is the psychology of influence on the net, everyone's brains are connected to this same network, and business and government know it. If they can even suggest that individuals give any credence to a random post online, they will make that post, and to their ends. So now, we have entire buildings of people filling the net with their 'opinions', in the name of influencing.
There are so many 'people' online that totally call cryptocurrency an inherit scam (which is pretty much impossible, inherently so, that the idea is itself a scam, and not just able to be used to scam.. cmon, the distinction is there), that I'm convinced that many of the anticrypto posts are simple persuasion,because either the riches want to buy in, or they are scared of what it can do (as far as replacing the status quo).
Now I'm sure I'm that crazy internet crypto dude all of a sudden, but listen closely, cause we will all see in the next decade or two, and neither you nor me know the future. Remember me either way. :)
But seriously, there are 1000's of cryptocurencies, you can't logic the possibility that even one was built with 'non-scammy' intentions? Cause 1 is all it takes to refute that 'ceyotocurrencies are inherently a scam'.
I'm sure your being vacecious, but there are those that would comment that seriously.
This was kind of a revelation to me a long time ago. When you're 20, you're a totally different person than when you're 10. When you're 30, different than 20. Just like the linked article suggests, you really tend to underestimate how much you're going to change in the future. At 10, you can't really consider how you're going to be when you're 20.