Absolutely, not to mention Eth just rolled out a major update last week. This rambling, bizarre article boils down to a few very basic, extremely played out arguments.
Argument 1: Proof of stake concentrates wealth more than proof of work.
You can make that argument, but POS advocates have for a long time argued that proof of work mining has more economies of scale than proof of stake and therefore the opposite is actually true. Equating proof of work miners to the working class & stakers or developers as wealthy elites or rulers is so massively cringe it's tough to even read.
Argument 2: Ethereum is in active development, is planning to switch to proof of stake, has things like difficulty bombs, and therefore is somehow dishonest.
Decentralized blockchain communities come to consensus around different values and philosophies. Eth has for a long time been a community which values consistent iteration and improvement around fundamental aspects of the protocol. The transition to proof of stake has been known for years and years. There's nothing dishonest about any of this. If anything the community has been asking for faster iteration to solve high transaction fees and improve usability. Bitcoin's development stagnation works fine for bitcoin. Ethereum is clearly making the right move in continuing to improve the base protocol. Which as you mention is a huge, extremely complicated undertaking.
The article goes on to some cognitive dissonance about how Ethereum doesn't deliver on promises despite the fact that it just delivered a major protocol update last week... might as well throw in the dao hack and icos and whatever else in there and see if anything sticks. I guess with nothing to develop or build, bitcoin maxi's have a lot of time to ramble incoherently about Ethereum. And they probably always will.
Not to mention the US government recently sent $1,200 to a huge swath of the country and Alaska has had a similarly sized UBI-like fund for years. If we want we can chop it up and give it to ourselves each month and call it a $100 UBI (somewhat means tested). Alongside smaller, more direct comparisons like this study, I think we already have a fairly good sense of what a small to moderate UBI would look like.
Nothing would go crazy. People would have more money. They’d work the same amount except select groups (students, disabled, elderly) and be slightly/moderately happier at least in the short term. We’d either have higher deficits or taxes, probably both.
The shifting goalposts of this argument have been interesting to watch over the last 3-4 years.
Stablecoins: I remember plenty of commenters being quite certain that volatility made cryptocurrency unusable. And yet a short time later we have successful decentralized stable coins.
DeFi: Just in the past months Uniswap has rivaled centralized exchange volume as a decentralized exchange. It's permissionless composability appears to be spinning off an interesting group of experimental financial instruments.
These are a couple huge concrete examples of successes that make the ~show me something real~ argument difficult for me to accept. Nobody has built skyscrapers yet, but skyscrapers aren't built in a day. We have some pretty solid architecture going up it seems.
And if you've been following the space long enough most of this article is tedious and inconsequential:
1) "For instance, hundreds of links to child pornography and revenge porn were placed in the bitcoin blockchain by malicious users."
2) "Also, in a blockchain you aren’t anonymous, but “pseudonymous”: your identity is linked to a number, and if someone can link your name to that number, you’re screwed. Everything you got up to on that blockchain is visible to everyone."
Blockchains have many different properties. Some have more stringent privacy measures than others. Many HN readers are likely familiar with privacy coins employing things like zero-knowledge proofs or ring signatures. Not to mention the burgeoning research into the implementations of homomorphic encryption. How about Harvard putting your genome on the blockchain in such a way where you retain full control over it's rights? Doesn't sound completely useless to me: https://nebula.org/whole-genome-sequencing/
3) "The fact that no one is in charge and nothing can be modified also means that mistakes cannot be corrected. A bank can reverse a payment request. This is impossible for bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies. So anything that has been stolen will stay stolen."
First of all huge amounts of digital theft occurs today that goes unreversed. Also infrastructure reducing errors in cryptocurrency is being improved all the time. Transaction finality has cons but also pros and can be modified. And one can also imagine insurance for these types of losses becoming commonplace.
4) "And then there’s the environmental problem."
This is probably the most legitimate concern so far. All I can say is I hope we get serious about investing in clean energy production as a country/globe. Many things use energy, including cryptocurrency, and that isn't stopping anytime soon whether we like it or not.
5) His complaint that a specific project is not using the blockchain correctly and individuals couldn't explain the blockchain well isn't very convincing.
Of course lots of experimentation will fail. Pets.com didn't make the internet wrong. And even the experts have trouble describing possibilities that don't exist yet. If that isn't reminiscent of the early days of the internet then I don't know what is. If you've seen Bill Gates get mocked by Letterman while trying to describe the early internet then you understand this difficulty.
It's worth remembering that this area is still incredibly young. If you can't at least see the potential then maybe you aren't looking in the right places. Like here: https://a16z.com/2018/02/10/crypto-readings-resources/
This is a classic pre-distribution versus redistribution debate. I’d just note that they are not mutually exclusive strategies and can both be undertaken simultaneously.
You can see Sweden has been able to do so but countries like US, France, Germany, UK all have similar levels of inequality before redistribution.
The US inequality compared to those countries is primarily due to lack of redistribution:
Exactly. It was the epidemiological modeling equivalent of suggesting we all inject disinfectant. Only it was worse because it was politically motivated instead of solely stupid.
If an analysis is making a reasonable effort to use the best or even some sort of relevant methodology in the field maybe. There is an entire field built around the learnings and failures of previous work that informs how we do things now.
In this circumstance the economist came in with no understanding or desire to understand any of that and through some random excel function at the problem to get the answer out they wanted for political expediency.
Not to mention the prediction was ridiculously stupid and anyone with common sense let alone an epidemiology degree could see it was going to be wildly incorrect within days.
THAT is the model being talked about at the highest levels of government when you have the entire field of the world class epidemiologists at your fingertips.
Trying to “both sides” this one because scientists who have spent their whole lives trying working on this got a little snarky is just missing the boat.
There are plenty of other places where epi Twitter is having productive cordial discussions.
The term for what you’re talking about is typically referred to as an “income effect”. You could(and people do) make the same argument against the existing social safety net. You can already do no work and simply survive off this net. The threat of death probably wasn’t the big motivator for most people. I could imagine UBI feeling qualitatively the same way once implemented. You still have all the positive motivations for working in place, getting monetary compensation, social status, etc. We don’t really know because it’s never been tried but there’s legitimate reason to believe the positives could outweigh these effects.