Always interesting when people confuse a fundamental technology (#blockchain or #DLT) with an application (#cryptocurrencies). It reminds me of a time when, in '95, Clifford Stoll famously predicted that the internet was a ‘fad’ - @Nouriel & @brunello_rosahttps://t.co/LQfsqdprkQ
Professor Roubini, now that you’ve covered blockchain and all its flaws so throughly, perhaps the same thoroughness could now be given to discussing your brand of economics that brought our world economy to the brink of collapse?
"Nouriel Roubini, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business and CEO of Roubini Macro Associates, was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank."
His only argument what I can acknowledge to a certain degree is the miner concentration in China. But the whole US economy, not only Bitcoin depends on China and that is a way bigger security concern, especially when the can hide spy chips on computers, smart phones aso. A coordinated attack on Bitcoin can only slow down the system, but not sabotage it. Also the cost of such an attack are way higher than just to hack a US banking computer with a spy chip.
The answer to this argument of his is make the US the top place for mining. Give tax concessions to miners to get them to leave china and relocate to the US.
Make the US bitcoin mining friendly and economically incentivize mining. Problem solved..
Roubini's mad-dog attack of blockchains and cryptocurrencies reflects an insecurity the old man is unwilling to come to terms with. It's one thing to criticize cryptocurrencies as motivated as greed, it's another to go all crazy with Twitter rants and senate testimonies that reveal latent misunderstanding about the systems in and around blockchains. Not only does Roubini claim that mining is centralized, which is wrong, he also thinks there can't be one atom of good in Bitcoin. That seems to me rather insincere.
cr0ft262283 karma | Karma CC: 364 ETH: 3623 months ago
Well, it's an opinion piece by Roubini.
Who doesn't even understand what a blockchain is, or that it is brutally hard for these shadowy Chinese cartels or whatever he envisions to mess with because it's all encryption based upon earlier encryption, so to hack it you have to hack thousands of geographically distributed nodes simultaneously. He actually compares a blockchain to a spreadsheet, which is beyond ludicrous.
Basically, it really is an old man ranting at something he doesn't even fully grasp.
Blockchains are a great innovation. I'm not so sure about cryptocurrencies, since I hate all currencies and capitalism, but at least they're secured by encryption and cannot be inflated or created willy nilly in whatever amounts a privately held central bank chooses.
A few self-serving white men (there are hardly any women or minorities in the blockchain universe) pretending to be messiahs for the world’s impoverished, marginalised and unbanked masses claim to have created billions of dollars of wealth out of nothing.
I do not agree with the entire statement, but the amount of "self-congratulatory" shit that goes in Blockchain conferences is mind boggling. I went Ethereum Devcon 3, and its not hyperbole when I say ONE entire day of 4 days of conference was about patting on the back.
Blockchain reminds me a little of the history of the internet but worse . The internet started with good intentions but then in the late 1990s it was all about greed and it took much longer for the value to really show. The main problem with blockchain is that they jumped straight to greed and get-rich-quick schemes before it showed any real world use.
I like Roubini despite his arrogance but surely everything to do with currency speculation is about greed? That's essentially what bitcoin is, it has little practical utility in day to day life.
The blockchain world - which as others have pointed out isn't short of cliques and boasters - is more like the early days of the internet IMO. Lots of interesting ideas and ways to leverage new technologies and ideas. Lots of terrible ideas, incompetence, corruption and greed, just like the internet circa 2000...and a few ideas that changed the world
It's great how much the potential of cryptocurrency depends on the market cap.
The scariest part to me about cryptocurrency is not the greed, lies and manipulation. It's a centralized cryptocurrency by a major government. Imagine if instead of cash, you had to pay for everything with a digital currency controlled by the US Govt. It'd be all the immutability of cryptocurrency with the monetary policy of the Fed Reserve. I'd bet the IRS and NSA would love the additional data.
Blockchain was once about using technology to solve a problem in a new and exciting way. Then people started to make money off of it. Lots of money. Then it became greed, and the technological progress halted.
Hopefully, enough people lose money so that the technical aspects can return to focus.
I don't really get it. Are the people commenting about how useless and stupid Bitcoin and Ethereum are, really putting themselves above Marc Andreessen, Ben Horowitz and Peter Thiel's predictions? I mean. At most, you could be skeptical.
Thinking that it's a joke when even those kinda guys (First successful browser, first cloud computing, first online payment service) are all-in it's mind blowing.
I remember reading the same comments on HF when I was a kid. And even before, about LR.
Guess who found (and will find) himself on the wrong side of history?
I stopped reading when I saw Nouriel Roubini. He's a smart economist and while I think he has good points on certain things that are wrong with crypto, the way he fundamentally delivers his views in this matter are ridiculous and bitter.
He's been overly passionate (and aggressive?) on trying to make sure he's right. He's shouting it from the rooftops. He keeps repeating it's all a bubble. All good and well, and it very well might be, BUT that in itself doesn't give him credibility. You can say the same thing about the stock market, and once every economic cycle when we see a major correction, you'll be right. A broken clock is also right twice a day.
At the same time, economists usually aren't very wealthy people.. maybe they are overly sceptical of new developments.
When bitcoin came out I was excited at the prospect of s free, egalitarian money. While it is free there’s not really anything egalitarian about it unfortunately, and I don’t see it solving huge problems like poverty.
Maybe a coin which is evenly distributed among the population to start would be better.
Well to be honest all human history can be described down to greed - all wars, conquests, colonisation, banking, investing, stocks and more. It's all about making profit.
Whatever bad you can say about blockchain and coins, one is undisputed - it's the first time in hundreds of years when an individual can print money and not be called a criminal. And that's a big shift of power.
To elaborate: thanks to blockchain there's nothing stopping you to create a coin for your group, your neighbourhood or your town - or the internet - that if adopted, will be accepted. And thanks to blockchain that coin actually works, is hard to forge, crack or counterfeit.
And the mainstream electricity argument is short-sighted. Humans need energy to evolve (fyi Kardashev scale). Bitcoin et al is the best incentive to actually create innovative, powerful and cheap energy sources.
I technology is not about anything. There are people who try to use it for good of humanity and there are people who try to use it for their personal gains on the cost of others. It's always like this. And if we wouldn't develop technology, they would still use the old ones (e.g. horse riding).
From a socialist lense, this article reads like a neoliberal greatest hits piece:
* Conflating anarchism and libertarianism
* Calling a technology racist and sexist
* A full-throated support of big banks and the privacy rights of the enterprise.
Furthermore, there are some outright flaws in the piece itself:
* Conflating usage of cryptocurrency in vivo with blockchain as a technology
* Claiming that decentralization of the ledger is a lie because big crypto traders control most of the economy
* Claiming that you can "just fork" the blockchain to fix programming errors, when in reality (at least with Bitcoin) you need a majority to do that (there are initiatives to chang Bitcoin that have failed, afterall).
* Calling an electronic ledger an Excel spreadsheet without any mention of the data integrity benefits.
Really at the end of the day, the author claimed to be attacking blockchain but really just ended up attacking cryptocurrencies.
This entire article is one giant dog turd. Not even polished, just a white-crusty-dog-turd.
It's evident the 'author' has little true understanding of the underlying block-chain technology other than what would be naysayers (who themselves are mainly white...ಠ_ಠ ) have all regurgitated in their efforts to seem like saviors of the minorities (who CLEARLY can't think or fend for themselves without some do-good white person making the important decisions for them).