• Tehhund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      Sure, but what real-world problem does a trustless solve? I thought this was all very interesting years ago but now that we’ve had blockchain for years it seems it’s only good for illegal or morally questionable transactions.

      • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Bingo. Capitalism has thus far rejected the blockchain, which is generally evidence that it doesn’t solve an important problem either efficiently, safely or cheaply.

        • grue@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          To be fair, there are plenty of other reasons capitalism might have rejected blockchain: market failure, interference by government, etc.

          I’m not saying that to defend cryptocurrency, by the way, but rather to point out that capitalism isn’t perfect at allocating resources in every situation.

          • Katana314@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Isn’t one of its goals to be free from government influence? That’s not a valid excuse.

          • capitalism is generally terrible at allocating ressources. It will always win to externalize costs, and if the people footing the bill cannot participate in the market, like for instance future generations, the result is always a self destructive system.

      • LesserAbe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        There’s a case to be made for a currency that facilitates illegal transactions, or transactions that corporations object to. Just because something is legal in your country doesn’t mean it might not be unjustly restricted. Or could just be unjustly illegal in your country or another country. The problem of course is that distributed currency also facilitates things that should be illegal.

        But WikiLeaks is a good example - their legacy is a little mixed now, but when they first came on the scene they were doing work which was a valuable service to the public. If you wanted to donate money to support wikileaks you couldn’t because the credit card processors shut them off. Blockchain lets you get around that.

        Likewise it’s the combination of distance and direct - I can give $5 in cash to my local leaking consortium, but I can’t give $5 to the leaking consortium on the other side of the world without relying on the knowledge and consent of third parties.