“.onion addresses and bitcoin addresses are secure and decentralized but not human-meaningful;”
All “crypto as in blockchains” requires trust and buy-in to that blockchain, and someone to put it on the blockchain. It being internally secure/trustworthy does not intrinsically mean it’s globally secure/trustworthy.
Sure, for the general case. In practice, we can look at Ethereum’s blockchain which has all the “buy-in” and “trust” enough to the point that it’s used to hold billions worth of value and is secured by the its validator network.
Ethereum has outlasted competing attempts to graft data onto a blockchain. It’s a long, long way from being accepted for general use by anyone who isn’t an enthusiast. The evaluation of a currency/company/blockchain is a measure of investor interest, little more.
You’re also misunderstanding. The problem isn’t whichever blockchain, the problem is that it’s still just a database. Someone has to be trusted to validate an entry. Whether that’s a trusted party, which defeats the point, or a consensus mechanism, which quickly becomes arbitrary/random, that the validation mechanism to interface with the ‘real world’ is the same weak point any other centralized database has. That the nodes are decentralized and cryptographically secure isn’t relevant.
I attend a worldwide unicycling convention every other year with thousands of attendees and millions of people have seen unicyclists. I wouldn’t call it mainstream.
Ethereum is still in the “garage band” phase. It (and BitCoin) had some commodity speculators jump in to make a quick buck and generate headlines. But other than that there’s a few thousand enthusiasts and the people they’ve managed to get interested, and little clear idea of where/how to build from there. For basically every blockchain use case the non-decentralized versions are at least an order of magnitude faster and simpler for the end user to understand. Unfortunately “It’s more secure” has never been a huge selling point in tech.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
A community to talk about the Fediverse and all it’s related services using ActivityPub (Mastodon, Lemmy, KBin, etc).
If you wanted to get help with moderating your own community then head over to [email protected]!
Rules
Posts must be on topic.
Be respectful of others.
Cite the sources used for graphs and other statistics.
So, I really don’t want to say “crypto solves this”, but name identities and ownership over domains is actually one of the valid use cases for NFTs.
Cryptography solved this a long time ago. No need for NFTs or anything “crypto”.
How can you solve Zooko’s Trilemma without “anything crypto”?
All “crypto as in blockchains” requires trust and buy-in to that blockchain, and someone to put it on the blockchain. It being internally secure/trustworthy does not intrinsically mean it’s globally secure/trustworthy.
Cryptography is not limited to blockchains.
Sure, for the general case. In practice, we can look at Ethereum’s blockchain which has all the “buy-in” and “trust” enough to the point that it’s used to hold billions worth of value and is secured by the its validator network.
Ethereum has outlasted competing attempts to graft data onto a blockchain. It’s a long, long way from being accepted for general use by anyone who isn’t an enthusiast. The evaluation of a currency/company/blockchain is a measure of investor interest, little more.
You’re also misunderstanding. The problem isn’t whichever blockchain, the problem is that it’s still just a database. Someone has to be trusted to validate an entry. Whether that’s a trusted party, which defeats the point, or a consensus mechanism, which quickly becomes arbitrary/random, that the validation mechanism to interface with the ‘real world’ is the same weak point any other centralized database has. That the nodes are decentralized and cryptographically secure isn’t relevant.
You have thousands of people running nodes and millions of people already having done at least one transaction, what’s your threshold then?
I attend a worldwide unicycling convention every other year with thousands of attendees and millions of people have seen unicyclists. I wouldn’t call it mainstream.
Ethereum is still in the “garage band” phase. It (and BitCoin) had some commodity speculators jump in to make a quick buck and generate headlines. But other than that there’s a few thousand enthusiasts and the people they’ve managed to get interested, and little clear idea of where/how to build from there. For basically every blockchain use case the non-decentralized versions are at least an order of magnitude faster and simpler for the end user to understand. Unfortunately “It’s more secure” has never been a huge selling point in tech.
My question was not rhetorical. What is your threshold to consider Ethereum a serious contender? What milestone should be reached?