We know the problems, stop wasting your time rehashing old work and start working on the solutions instead of pointing to the list and saying ‘but’, and ‘no’.
Also, I never provided a solution, I provided an imaginary ideation but that seems to be lost on a lot of people who’s reading comprehension is probably easily insulted.
Just because a problem is old, doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
For NFTs to be useful as a receipt, for them to have the benefits you list, there needs to be an answer to the problem “what happens when reality doesn’t match the block chain”.
You don’t have to have a solution to this problem but maybe consider how much the value of NFTs are diminished without it. A government can’t rely on these things if they can’t regulate them. People won’t rely on them if mistakes can’t be corrected. They are just toys without these issues addressed.
An ideal vision doesn’t matter. Ideally we could burn fossil fuels forever and not worry about CO2 emissions.
I see your reading comprehension hasn’t improved, I’d spell it out for you in language you’d understand but I have neither the patience nor the crayons.
we know that the problem with the hindenburg was that hydrogen is too easily flammable and explosive, but ignoring that, it was a pretty neat, and safe mode of transport, don’t you think?
yeah, that does not use hydrogen. because they took the tech that didn’t work for that purpose, and replaced it with something that did.
In this analogy, you’re not defending blimps, but hydrogen use in blimps.
This example was solved by removing the problematic element, hydrogen, not by burying our heads in the sand and reiterating that “hydrogen in blimps is safe! we just need someone else to fix its very obvious issues with it.”
Well, every “someone else” came to the conclusion that the best way to use hydrogen in blimps is to just… not.
No amount of claiming that we just need an Nth opinion will change the fact that whoever actually did look at the problem (not yourself, by your own admission) deemed it intractable
we’re talking about hydrogen use in blimps. Not about blimps.
hydrogen as a lighter-than-air technology for civilian transport is a dead end. It’s not safe in a blimp, it’s not safe in a hot air balloon. It’s not safe for any application involving lighter than air human transport.
We improved the lighter-than-air technology by realizing that there was more than one way to achieve it, identifying one of those ways as hopelessly wrong for the job, and switched to something else that does solve the safety problems with hydrogen, i.e. helium
There’s more than one way to do X. Blockchain is one of those ways, but as it turns out, it does not solve the problems that need solving (the root of trust issue). Not big news, given that it is impossible to solve in general. You always have to put your trust somewhere. No amount of hoping and listing other supposed advantages will change this.
Since I made the analogy, and I told you which part of my analogy corresponds to the argument you’re making, it means that makes you the one who’s missing the point.
I told you what the analogy I made means, and you said, 'but I wanna talk about something else, unrelated"
well, someone has to think of these problems, if they are going to keep recommending these anti-solutions
We know the problems, stop wasting your time rehashing old work and start working on the solutions instead of pointing to the list and saying ‘but’, and ‘no’.
Also, I never provided a solution, I provided an imaginary ideation but that seems to be lost on a lot of people who’s reading comprehension is probably easily insulted.
Just because a problem is old, doesn’t mean it’s invalid.
For NFTs to be useful as a receipt, for them to have the benefits you list, there needs to be an answer to the problem “what happens when reality doesn’t match the block chain”.
You don’t have to have a solution to this problem but maybe consider how much the value of NFTs are diminished without it. A government can’t rely on these things if they can’t regulate them. People won’t rely on them if mistakes can’t be corrected. They are just toys without these issues addressed.
An ideal vision doesn’t matter. Ideally we could burn fossil fuels forever and not worry about CO2 emissions.
Smart contracts can have arbitrary mechanisms to modify state involving any number of parties.
You’re all over my comments like they’re a cock and your job is to suck it.
You’re the asshole that started with insults. I responded in kind.
I see your reading comprehension hasn’t improved, I’d spell it out for you in language you’d understand but I have neither the patience nor the crayons.
I feel like two or three weeks ago you would never see a convo like this on Lemmy. Can we all do better here.
we know that the problem with the hindenburg was that hydrogen is too easily flammable and explosive, but ignoring that, it was a pretty neat, and safe mode of transport, don’t you think?
yeah, that does not use hydrogen. because they took the tech that didn’t work for that purpose, and replaced it with something that did.
In this analogy, you’re not defending blimps, but hydrogen use in blimps.
This example was solved by removing the problematic element, hydrogen, not by burying our heads in the sand and reiterating that “hydrogen in blimps is safe! we just need someone else to fix its very obvious issues with it.”
Well, every “someone else” came to the conclusion that the best way to use hydrogen in blimps is to just… not.
No amount of claiming that we just need an Nth opinion will change the fact that whoever actually did look at the problem (not yourself, by your own admission) deemed it intractable
Yes, they didn’t ignore the tech, they made changes and upgrades to make it viable.
we’re talking about hydrogen use in blimps. Not about blimps.
hydrogen as a lighter-than-air technology for civilian transport is a dead end. It’s not safe in a blimp, it’s not safe in a hot air balloon. It’s not safe for any application involving lighter than air human transport.
We improved the lighter-than-air technology by realizing that there was more than one way to achieve it, identifying one of those ways as hopelessly wrong for the job, and switched to something else that does solve the safety problems with hydrogen, i.e. helium
There’s more than one way to do X. Blockchain is one of those ways, but as it turns out, it does not solve the problems that need solving (the root of trust issue). Not big news, given that it is impossible to solve in general. You always have to put your trust somewhere. No amount of hoping and listing other supposed advantages will change this.
You’re talking about hydrogen, I’m talking about blimps. There’s a reason you still miss the point.
Since I made the analogy, and I told you which part of my analogy corresponds to the argument you’re making, it means that makes you the one who’s missing the point.
I told you what the analogy I made means, and you said, 'but I wanna talk about something else, unrelated"
you don’t get to pick what I say