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"
Since you made the analogy in an attempt to explain how my position was wrong while being completely ignorant of my position it makes no difference what the analogy is.
You’re wrong because you intentionally and disingenuously attempt to put words into my mouth over and over, because you’re a moron who can’t see the forest for the trees.
You don’t get to pick what I say
If self awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
your position is very clear. You think blockchains are a solution to something, but with some “teething issues” that will be solved by someone else because it’s not your job to even think about them.
While ignoring the fact that those teething problems have been there from the start, are still there even though tons of people have actually looked at them and made attempts to solve it, and figured out that it is an unfixable issue fundamental to this technology (or any other, really).
If what we need is a white cube, you’re presenting a white sphere and focusing on how white it is, instead of the fact that no matter how white you make it, it will still never be a cube. because it’s a sphere.
None of the blockchain technologies solve the root of trust problem. None of them does because that step has to be solved before the blockchain can be trusted in the first place.
The problem we have in real life is not mutability of data. That’s been a solved problem for ages. Give me a file digitally signed by you, and I can forever use it to verify that you haven’t modified your copy (assuming your private key was not compromised.l, which is an issue shared by any blockchain too) and also that I haven’t modified mine…
The problem we have in real life is establishing a root of trust before we start exchanging data. Blockchains don’t and can’t tackle this. So they are not a solution to the problem that we do have.
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
Since you made the analogy in an attempt to explain how my position was wrong while being completely ignorant of my position it makes no difference what the analogy is.
You’re wrong because you intentionally and disingenuously attempt to put words into my mouth over and over, because you’re a moron who can’t see the forest for the trees.
If self awareness was a disease you’d be the healthiest person alive.
your position is very clear. You think blockchains are a solution to something, but with some “teething issues” that will be solved by someone else because it’s not your job to even think about them.
While ignoring the fact that those teething problems have been there from the start, are still there even though tons of people have actually looked at them and made attempts to solve it, and figured out that it is an unfixable issue fundamental to this technology (or any other, really).
If what we need is a white cube, you’re presenting a white sphere and focusing on how white it is, instead of the fact that no matter how white you make it, it will still never be a cube. because it’s a sphere.
None of the blockchain technologies solve the root of trust problem. None of them does because that step has to be solved before the blockchain can be trusted in the first place.
The problem we have in real life is not mutability of data. That’s been a solved problem for ages. Give me a file digitally signed by you, and I can forever use it to verify that you haven’t modified your copy (assuming your private key was not compromised.l, which is an issue shared by any blockchain too) and also that I haven’t modified mine…
The problem we have in real life is establishing a root of trust before we start exchanging data. Blockchains don’t and can’t tackle this. So they are not a solution to the problem that we do have.
He’s gone. The blockchain has him.
I’ve read half a sentence and you’ve already got my position wrong, for something that is so clear how do you not get it?
Keep trying to force your ignorance through my lips, I’ll keep telling you you’re the moron you are.