Tell HN: We have a responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies
382 comments
I dislike this kind of consensus-building rhetoric and I don't like seeing it on the front page of HN. By all means present critiques of crypto/web3, but don't make false claims along the lines of "all right-thinking people agree that X is a scourge upon the earth".
It's equivalent to starting a conversation off with a loaded question - a useful tactic if you're trying to score points, but not likely to lead to anyone learning anything.
It's equivalent to starting a conversation off with a loaded question - a useful tactic if you're trying to score points, but not likely to lead to anyone learning anything.
Like many people back then, I also found the whole proof-of-work / blockchain concept to be interesting from a theoretical computer science / distributed systems perspective.
But these days, I can't help but think that we've inadvertently created a paperclip maximizer without even bothering to create an AGI first. Humans are the AGI, and we're going to happily use more and more energy to play this stupid game for as long as it looks like there's a profit to be made, even if the global outcome is to our own detriment.
If we want this mess to go away, we need to find a way to change the incentives globally.
But these days, I can't help but think that we've inadvertently created a paperclip maximizer without even bothering to create an AGI first. Humans are the AGI, and we're going to happily use more and more energy to play this stupid game for as long as it looks like there's a profit to be made, even if the global outcome is to our own detriment.
If we want this mess to go away, we need to find a way to change the incentives globally.
I find it strange that people keep promoting that YouTube documentary. Ignoring tone issues, there is a lot of cherry picking and other logical fallacies. For example, he talks about how terrible Tether is and then completely ignores USDC. He also claims that none of the popular blockchains can scale, but Solana is frequently in the top 5 most popular cryptocurrencies.
It seems to me that people that do an hour of research are polarized hard. Either love it or hate it. The more time you spend understanding the space the more nuanced it becomes. Many are using the technology to facilitate scams and overpromising, but that doesn't make the technology fundamentally useless or bad.
It seems to me that people that do an hour of research are polarized hard. Either love it or hate it. The more time you spend understanding the space the more nuanced it becomes. Many are using the technology to facilitate scams and overpromising, but that doesn't make the technology fundamentally useless or bad.
> what a nightmarish step backwards it is for developers concerned with cost, speed, privacy, safety, and ease.
1) There's a lot of research and development into blockchain technology by very smart people. The systems are improving. What technology we'll have 5, 10, or 25 years from now is going to be much different than what exists now. It's a lack of imagination to think that because crypto is "slow" now (and not all of it is by the way), that it will always be the case. The equivalent is looking at a 5.25" floppy disk in the early 80s and thinking that all physical media is forever going to be too small and too slow to be usable.
2) Low cost, speed, privacy, safety, and usability are great attributes to have: and in many cases are currently superior on established centralized systems. But don't other important attributes exist?
* What about resistance to censorship? A centralized system can ban you because of what you say or even because of who you are. Maybe a purely decentralized system cannot. I guess that's one reason why a lot of people fear it.
* And what about trust? Many people do not trust a lot of centralized systems from powerful groups: such as how many shares of stock are even in existence given the practice of naked shorting. Check out this story.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/rsaevv/in_march...
> In March of 2005 this guy bought 100% of shares (1.1M shares) in a traded company to prove the corruption. The next two days that same stock traded 50 million times and dropping the price 99% in two hours. All this with LITERALLY NO SHARES AVAILABLE TO BORROW OR SHORT.
Isn't it possible that the drawbacks of blockchains might be worth it if they can prove perfectly transparent and reduce or eliminate corruption? Imagine a stock market that ran on some next generation blockchain tech that was perfectly transparent without any doubt about the number of shares in existence. No more dirty tricks or fraud possible. Are the upsides of this not worth any discussion?
1) There's a lot of research and development into blockchain technology by very smart people. The systems are improving. What technology we'll have 5, 10, or 25 years from now is going to be much different than what exists now. It's a lack of imagination to think that because crypto is "slow" now (and not all of it is by the way), that it will always be the case. The equivalent is looking at a 5.25" floppy disk in the early 80s and thinking that all physical media is forever going to be too small and too slow to be usable.
2) Low cost, speed, privacy, safety, and usability are great attributes to have: and in many cases are currently superior on established centralized systems. But don't other important attributes exist?
* What about resistance to censorship? A centralized system can ban you because of what you say or even because of who you are. Maybe a purely decentralized system cannot. I guess that's one reason why a lot of people fear it.
* And what about trust? Many people do not trust a lot of centralized systems from powerful groups: such as how many shares of stock are even in existence given the practice of naked shorting. Check out this story.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/rsaevv/in_march...
> In March of 2005 this guy bought 100% of shares (1.1M shares) in a traded company to prove the corruption. The next two days that same stock traded 50 million times and dropping the price 99% in two hours. All this with LITERALLY NO SHARES AVAILABLE TO BORROW OR SHORT.
Isn't it possible that the drawbacks of blockchains might be worth it if they can prove perfectly transparent and reduce or eliminate corruption? Imagine a stock market that ran on some next generation blockchain tech that was perfectly transparent without any doubt about the number of shares in existence. No more dirty tricks or fraud possible. Are the upsides of this not worth any discussion?
Labeling the entire sector as dangerous and fraudulent is incredibly short-sighted, dismissive, and at the end of the day, a lie. I don't buy into the crypto craze of Web 3.0 and NFTs (in terms of digital art), but I do think the technology already has applications that are useful to many, and many that still remain to be discovered.
I agree that we should inform people about the risks and scams that are currently common in the crypto space, but you're advocating for a lot more than that.
You can speak for yourself, but you shouldn't pretend that your opinion is shared by, or that you speak for, the majority of people working in IT.
I agree that we should inform people about the risks and scams that are currently common in the crypto space, but you're advocating for a lot more than that.
You can speak for yourself, but you shouldn't pretend that your opinion is shared by, or that you speak for, the majority of people working in IT.
Alright, go for it. Speak out all you want. Cryptocurrency users will continue ignoring and/or deriding you.
Telling people that you don't like what they're doing is not an effective way to modify their behavior. You need to provide competing incentives, and somehow I doubt y'all are up to that.
Telling people that you don't like what they're doing is not an effective way to modify their behavior. You need to provide competing incentives, and somehow I doubt y'all are up to that.
Your assessment of affairs is drenched in obvious bias. The downsides of these new technologies get plenty of airtime (your post included), but completely fail to acknowledge the genuine and useful innovations that are now possible (yes, there are many). Why was there no similar outcry from the technology community over the invention and proliferation of machine learning? It can be used for good or evil (there are plenty of cases of the latter that I'm sure the crowd can think of). It's extremely early days for groundbreaking technologies that have a lot of potential beyond the obvious scams we can all point to. We shouldn't banish a technology merely because it has the potential to harm (almost all technology does). What we should do is educate folks so they can decide whether they want to participate for themselves, rather than telling them how to think.
DLTs are not the problem. The problem is idiocracy. Most people don't think anymore. Some people even buy NFTs thinking ownership right come with those - not even asking legal questions...
DLTs can indeed be incredibly useful, e.g. when multiple parties use the tech as a trusted pseudonymous data log, e.g. drug tracking from production to pharmacies. Or decentralized certificate wallets which allow you to actually own certificates you earned and prove that those are valid.
Those are just not the stories media can sell as good as "some stupid link to an ape / rock picture has been sold for x gazillion USD".
DLTs can indeed be incredibly useful, e.g. when multiple parties use the tech as a trusted pseudonymous data log, e.g. drug tracking from production to pharmacies. Or decentralized certificate wallets which allow you to actually own certificates you earned and prove that those are valid.
Those are just not the stories media can sell as good as "some stupid link to an ape / rock picture has been sold for x gazillion USD".
I mean I graduated top 5% of my class and make early 6 figures. My friend who graduated bottom 5% is now a crypto millionaire living in Dubai. Meanwhile I can write complex Scala code but I have no idea what blockchain , NFT , crypto is all about apart from the fact that it made my friend rich and made early adopters rich . How , why , when I don’t know . What’s the gain, purpose of it - I don’t know . Then again I don’t know what’s the purpose of data processing for ad-tech ML models and how it helps humanity either . The world is a Ponzi scheme . Can I go back to 1995?
I think the best we can do is give our opinion when asked questions like
"Hey you know about these things. Is web3 the next evolution of the internet and should I buy in?"
"No and no"
"You're just mad because you missed out"
"Here's a collection of material I've been saving that says I'm right. You might want to take a look before you invest"
"You sound negative"
"Ok, consider me the 10th man then. Ignore me if you want"
And just leave it at that. You can lead a horse to water...
https://themindcollection.com/the-tenth-man-rule-devils-advo...
"Hey you know about these things. Is web3 the next evolution of the internet and should I buy in?"
"No and no"
"You're just mad because you missed out"
"Here's a collection of material I've been saving that says I'm right. You might want to take a look before you invest"
"You sound negative"
"Ok, consider me the 10th man then. Ignore me if you want"
And just leave it at that. You can lead a horse to water...
https://themindcollection.com/the-tenth-man-rule-devils-advo...
I disagree with your assumptions. There are many conflicting views, and to me it is an objective fact that barely anyone really understands the technology and what its ramifications will be. Morality and development is a very tricky thing. As an analogy, all of AI tech to me is leading toward a horrific future, but I don't see how anyone can stop that and Chinese autonomous military drones, mass surveillance etc; there was no way that early developers can predict how their tech will be used
why? i think it's the coolest thing ever.
anyone can write a contract to automate taking out a loan, investing it, and pulling out the money, develop exotic securities, and bespoke arbitration. anyone can do it regardless of credentials or connections; just a month of learning.
pretty darn cool to have unbridled access to a distributed computer.
anyone can write a contract to automate taking out a loan, investing it, and pulling out the money, develop exotic securities, and bespoke arbitration. anyone can do it regardless of credentials or connections; just a month of learning.
pretty darn cool to have unbridled access to a distributed computer.
I might be saying something wrong or outright stupid, but it seems you're not looking at all the areas this new tech is being used. I mean, I have looked at what The Coupon Bureau is doing with DLT tech, and I know it is /not/ proof of work, and it is very energy efficient, and it seems to be legitimately useful tech, regarding transparency, speed and security. Again, this is far from my area of expertise, so I may sound really ignorant and dumb, and I would really like to know more about why they're wrong. I only chose Coupon Bureau and the DLT company they partner with as an example because it's one of the more interesting use cases that I've seen from the research I did in this area. I don't mind if it is really a bad or irrelevant use of DLT/crypto, but I wish I could know why is that so, and how is it not a legitimate use case (from someone smarter and more knowledgeable in the area than myself).
Absolutely not. I completely disagree with your claims.
https://mobile.twitter.com/realsexycyborg/status/13807504757...
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/140404849753222758...
This kind of rhetoric can only be used by privileged (often white) western people with access to international financial markets, PayPal, stocks, and free (or cheap) cross-country transfers like and unified banking regions like USA or SEPA (EU).
I will continue to strongly and energetically defend that cryptocurrencies and blockchains are just a tool. Tools aren't good or bad. A knife can kill people but can also feed a family.
Sure, there are scams occasionally but it is nowhere as bad as some people seem to think it is. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are two technologies that vastly improve distributed systems design as well as allow otherwise financially oppressed people to conduct their finances in a secure way and spend the money wherever they want.
I will never shut up about it. But unfortunately, because of this ridiculous cancel culture, I also can't publicly defend cryptocurrencies under my real name, as I'm not privileged enough to not face consequences.
https://twitter.com/RealSexyCyborg/status/140404849753222758...
This kind of rhetoric can only be used by privileged (often white) western people with access to international financial markets, PayPal, stocks, and free (or cheap) cross-country transfers like and unified banking regions like USA or SEPA (EU).
I will continue to strongly and energetically defend that cryptocurrencies and blockchains are just a tool. Tools aren't good or bad. A knife can kill people but can also feed a family.
Sure, there are scams occasionally but it is nowhere as bad as some people seem to think it is. Blockchain and cryptocurrencies are two technologies that vastly improve distributed systems design as well as allow otherwise financially oppressed people to conduct their finances in a secure way and spend the money wherever they want.
I will never shut up about it. But unfortunately, because of this ridiculous cancel culture, I also can't publicly defend cryptocurrencies under my real name, as I'm not privileged enough to not face consequences.
Blaming the technology for its misuses is always a dubious position to take.
The promoters of said technology (and it's misuses) will always argue that you could say the same about <actually useful technology> which allows <some bad guys> to do this <bad thing> and are you saying this means we should ban this <useful technology> ??!
They would argue this and they would have a point. Also, in an open democratic/non-surveillance state, you can't really ban a technology like this. Instead you focus on regulating the marketing of its misuses or launching information campaigns (I guess that's what you're doing).
Like cigarettes, pink-sheet stocks, multi-level marketing and gambling or any other large revenue sources that are either zero-sum or have net negative social impact, you're better off convincing the public of its dangers than pointing the finger at the underlying technology.
The promoters of said technology (and it's misuses) will always argue that you could say the same about <actually useful technology> which allows <some bad guys> to do this <bad thing> and are you saying this means we should ban this <useful technology> ??!
They would argue this and they would have a point. Also, in an open democratic/non-surveillance state, you can't really ban a technology like this. Instead you focus on regulating the marketing of its misuses or launching information campaigns (I guess that's what you're doing).
Like cigarettes, pink-sheet stocks, multi-level marketing and gambling or any other large revenue sources that are either zero-sum or have net negative social impact, you're better off convincing the public of its dangers than pointing the finger at the underlying technology.
You should also speak out against the internet. So much crime, scams and heinous acts happen there. I don't get your point, is the technology a scam or are the people using it to perpetuate scams? In the latter case you have a people and legal problem not a tech problem.
I don't see a problem with NFTs being used in in-game credits and ownership tracking. I also see nothing wrong with blockchain being used to replace certificate authorities. Every technology gets abused. You have laws to regulate technology for this reason.
Instead of speaking out against the tech, maybe call your lawmakers and tell them about how the tech is being abused and how it can be regulated.
I don't see a problem with NFTs being used in in-game credits and ownership tracking. I also see nothing wrong with blockchain being used to replace certificate authorities. Every technology gets abused. You have laws to regulate technology for this reason.
Instead of speaking out against the tech, maybe call your lawmakers and tell them about how the tech is being abused and how it can be regulated.
> the entire scope of these technologies is promoting fraud, scams, and Greater Fool schemes
With this statement the author shows bias and a lack of serious interest in discussion.
Indeed most cryptocurrency projects are frankly illegitimate, but certainly not all.
With this statement the author shows bias and a lack of serious interest in discussion.
Indeed most cryptocurrency projects are frankly illegitimate, but certainly not all.
I don't think you understand what Bitcoin has brought to the table. Consider its fundamentals and its network effect. Other blockchain tech, most prominently permissioned blockchains, should be reprobated, since they don't require blockchain tech and could be better implemented using tech that relies on standard database systems.
No you don't have any responsibility to speak out against blockchain technologies, that's for luddites. You can speak out against cryptocurrency, NFTs, false promises and poor implementations of the technology, but to speak out against technology as if you're a point of authority on technology when you're really concerned with economics and society, is insincere to present if you've given consideration to it purely from that tech lens - it's an appeal to authority logical fallacy.
There are plenty of opportunities for people to "lose their shirt" in the current environment, but that's not technology's fault, it is the result of illogical human behavior falling to a scam artist selling something for more than its worth and someone falling for it because they are not informed. It can happen with any pseudo-commodity. If we go back to the popular "Tulip bulb bubble" analogy, if you were a horticulturalist would it be your duty to point out how Tulip bulbs need to be banned for everyone's safety, or would you be stepping outside your domain into that of an economist? Nothing changed functionally about tulip bulbs, except the price and that's not up to the average horticulturist.
By all means, remain skeptical when investing and do your own research, set expectations based on reason. You don't have to hate 100% things about crypto-currency when you really only hate 99% of it, you may find the 1% you do like has to do with purely technical things (technology) vs investor speculation (people). I hate a lot of things about the blockchain space, but technology is certainly not the reason, it's people's relationship/understanding of it and insanity/PR around low value/highly priced things that aren't innovative or useful - the noise + hype if you will is a bit nonsensical at times, not the tech itself, imho.
PS [edit] : And as far as a lot of the problems people have on the blockchain as far as trustworthiness can be solved by blockchain tech itself, it just hasn't happened. It is the "killer dapp" and I've given it some thought, but I won't give it all away unless someone wants to help me build it :)
There are plenty of opportunities for people to "lose their shirt" in the current environment, but that's not technology's fault, it is the result of illogical human behavior falling to a scam artist selling something for more than its worth and someone falling for it because they are not informed. It can happen with any pseudo-commodity. If we go back to the popular "Tulip bulb bubble" analogy, if you were a horticulturalist would it be your duty to point out how Tulip bulbs need to be banned for everyone's safety, or would you be stepping outside your domain into that of an economist? Nothing changed functionally about tulip bulbs, except the price and that's not up to the average horticulturist.
By all means, remain skeptical when investing and do your own research, set expectations based on reason. You don't have to hate 100% things about crypto-currency when you really only hate 99% of it, you may find the 1% you do like has to do with purely technical things (technology) vs investor speculation (people). I hate a lot of things about the blockchain space, but technology is certainly not the reason, it's people's relationship/understanding of it and insanity/PR around low value/highly priced things that aren't innovative or useful - the noise + hype if you will is a bit nonsensical at times, not the tech itself, imho.
PS [edit] : And as far as a lot of the problems people have on the blockchain as far as trustworthiness can be solved by blockchain tech itself, it just hasn't happened. It is the "killer dapp" and I've given it some thought, but I won't give it all away unless someone wants to help me build it :)
From a technical perspective you are correct.
However, in the midst of a mania, unfortunately nobody is going to listen to a group of engineers telling them about the dangers of blockchain.
The only thing that will, and can, stop the madness is politicians getting off their backsides and implementing related laws and regulations.
If you want to talk to anyone, and have any potential effect, talk to the people in government.
However, in the midst of a mania, unfortunately nobody is going to listen to a group of engineers telling them about the dangers of blockchain.
The only thing that will, and can, stop the madness is politicians getting off their backsides and implementing related laws and regulations.
If you want to talk to anyone, and have any potential effect, talk to the people in government.
You're wrong. New flavors of crypto, blockchain apps, etc are almost entirely scams. But Bitcoin itself is an incredible technology, and I don't think its beautiful design gets appreciated enough in the midst of all the speculative investments, derivative currencies, and marketing.
You made a critical mistake in your opening sentence: you conflated 3 very different things, not a promising start. "Blockchain technology" is just a consensus protocol, cryptocurrencies are currencies (well, one of them is at least), and NFTs are effectively pet rocks at the moment. I'm having a hard time seeing why that demands a marshalling of all true "technologists"... to do what, exactly? Refuse to work on projects involving those three things? Demand governments coordinate a global round up of those who are presently doing such work? Is this the final form for those that have repeatedly declared bitcoin dead - year after year, growing more and more furious as they calculate how much their terrible opinion has cost?
Name one technology that was successfully eradicated by astroturfing and legislation, instead of genuine market forces. Now, if you somehow manage to do that - were the users of that technology compelled to act against their own interest in service to jetsetters gathered around Hillary Clinton in Davos Switzerland? Because that is exactly what you'll need to do in order to get your way.
Name one technology that was successfully eradicated by astroturfing and legislation, instead of genuine market forces. Now, if you somehow manage to do that - were the users of that technology compelled to act against their own interest in service to jetsetters gathered around Hillary Clinton in Davos Switzerland? Because that is exactly what you'll need to do in order to get your way.
https://www.profgalloway.com/web3/
Another valuable insight into the dubious, duplicit world of crypto.
Another valuable insight into the dubious, duplicit world of crypto.
This reminds me of the stories about Edison electrocuting elephants as a means of demonstrating the "danger" of alternating current.
Bad Application =/= Bad Technology
Most telephone calls are scam calls, it doesn't mean telephones were a bad idea. All scammers are humans, but not all humans are scammers. If there is a scam then call it out directly rather than wasting energy on the general platform.
Bad Application =/= Bad Technology
Most telephone calls are scam calls, it doesn't mean telephones were a bad idea. All scammers are humans, but not all humans are scammers. If there is a scam then call it out directly rather than wasting energy on the general platform.
Careful using the term ‘ponzi’ - they’ll show up and argue with you on semantics of what to call the scam while ignoring your other (valid) arguments.
This comment on Reddit today shook me a bit: https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRaceTo10Million/comments/sem15u/...
The chutzpah has gone so far that anything proto-crypto is the solution to anything else.
This person is dealing with cancer and bankruptcy and some putz comes along and tells him to create some NFTs.
I wanted to scream.
The chutzpah has gone so far that anything proto-crypto is the solution to anything else.
This person is dealing with cancer and bankruptcy and some putz comes along and tells him to create some NFTs.
I wanted to scream.
I'd say the goal shouldn't be to convince the crypto fanatics.
It should be building awareness towards what cryptocurrencies and technologies based on the blockchain actually are and why they can't at all achieve what people invested in crypto promise. For the people that are vulnerable, politicians and organizations, in short: people being manipulated by outright false promises and deliberately vague "arguments" (like there always being that one coin nobody uses which of course solves all the problems of the topic at hand).
Crypto doesn't offer much in terms of decentralization, but one thing it does decentralize incredibly well is advertisement and evangelism because every single cryptocurrency holder has a true financial incentive to spread overhyped and false information around anything remotely connected to blockchain technologies in order to drive up the price.
It should be building awareness towards what cryptocurrencies and technologies based on the blockchain actually are and why they can't at all achieve what people invested in crypto promise. For the people that are vulnerable, politicians and organizations, in short: people being manipulated by outright false promises and deliberately vague "arguments" (like there always being that one coin nobody uses which of course solves all the problems of the topic at hand).
Crypto doesn't offer much in terms of decentralization, but one thing it does decentralize incredibly well is advertisement and evangelism because every single cryptocurrency holder has a true financial incentive to spread overhyped and false information around anything remotely connected to blockchain technologies in order to drive up the price.
My brother is currently working in the field. It brings him good money. Now, really good money. His work is 100% clean per se (infrastructure for mining).
I don't feel any moral grounds to say anything to him, he does it for engineering and fun and really actualizes himself. He is my older brother finally creating something meaningful for people and having rightful rewards. He is hidden in the moral waves, harvesting something he can, surfing in the sunshine. I don't know how to think about this.
I don't feel any moral grounds to say anything to him, he does it for engineering and fun and really actualizes himself. He is my older brother finally creating something meaningful for people and having rightful rewards. He is hidden in the moral waves, harvesting something he can, surfing in the sunshine. I don't know how to think about this.
I really don't follow. Can anyone enlighten me? I used to go with the casual notion 'tech isn't evil' / 'even a chair can be used as a weapon'. What have I missed here for blockchain?
Oh f** off. You know what’s even more damaging? Social networks impact on democracy in Western countries. Data mining from big tech and the impact on an individuals right to privacy. Making systems deliberately addictive which is highly likely to be related to the rise in mental health issues.
Bad crypto projects will die out. Maybe the tech will work for some use cases, like Visas work in the space, maybe it won’t. Crusading against a technology that you probably don’t understand entirely is frustrating to read, flame-war inducing, and repetitive on HN. Everyone understands that it’s like marmite, you either really like it or really hate it, but there are far more important things to take a moral stance against than blockchain tech. I wish we’d all just move on and talk about other things.
Bad crypto projects will die out. Maybe the tech will work for some use cases, like Visas work in the space, maybe it won’t. Crusading against a technology that you probably don’t understand entirely is frustrating to read, flame-war inducing, and repetitive on HN. Everyone understands that it’s like marmite, you either really like it or really hate it, but there are far more important things to take a moral stance against than blockchain tech. I wish we’d all just move on and talk about other things.
For those not familiar with the industry, the YouTube documentary "Line Goes Up" by Dan Olson (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ_xWvX1n9g) has been pointed to many times in HN threads, and is a great introduction to how dangerous these technologies really are. Within a few hours of following any tutorial on building a decentralized app, most developers should be able to see what an absolute disaster zone trying to work with this fundamentally broken technology would be, and what a nightmarish step backwards it is for developers concerned with cost, speed, privacy, safety, and ease.
I think it is important as technologists, engineers, and developers that we start making it very loud and clear to the public how fraud-ridden and dangerous these systems are. With most early-adopters running dry, the Ponzi scheme will only be able to continue by expanding into the average consumer market - and if as a community we stay silent about why and how these systems are simply convoluted scam practices, we are dooming ourselves to work with them.