Submitted by dogonix t3_zsfutk in Futurology
Dan_Felder t1_j17r02p wrote
What substance?
Blockchain has nothing to do with this. Blockchain just needed a usecase and Metaverse needed some explanation about what leap in tech had made it possible all of a sudden, and so "web3" was born by combing the two scams.
Only generative AI makes virtual worlds on that scale remotely possible, and it IS the far more exciting thing.
Xist3nce t1_j182b3v wrote
Until you remember we can’t have anything good under human greed. Whatever corporations that crack solid AI use will monetize it so hard it won’t be even nearly 1/100th or what it could be. We have enough resources in the world to solve almost all problems globally. We won’t obviously, but we could. Meta could have bought VR chat, slapped some money in their pockets and just profit but they wanted to drag any semblance of something that could be cool if they actually knew anything about humans through the mud because Zuck wanted full control over the narrative. The “meta verse” is already here and no one wants to be bombarded with ads or work in VR.
Trips-Over-Tail t1_j190gvh wrote
What hype?
Dan_Felder t1_j19axho wrote
They’ve been using it to hype a lot of stuff in the blockchain space.
runefar t1_j1b2n73 wrote
Except there are a lot of different business beyond this using web3. Blockchain didn't need a usecase. On a functional level it already has a usecase but people wanted to build beyond that use case like with many architectural technology and they in fact have. Metaverse is one of the more weird ones but there are also other forms of the technology more actively being built upon in healthcare related usages around automation as well as around advanced airmobility and on top of those technology things will also be built and integrated. Sadly the financial side gets more focus but there is a whole ecosystem that is more active than you are acknowledging...
Dan_Felder t1_j1b2whl wrote
>Except there are a lot of different business beyond this using web3. Blockchain didn't need a usecase.
Okay, please list any use cases please of what blockchain can do that can't be done better, cheaper, or faster without it. I'm very used to hearing people claim there are lots of use cases but it usually comes down to a few variations on, "what if we required owning a token to get discounts on stuff we already sell anyway?"
runefar t1_j1b8b9y wrote
Well on the basic front blockchain use case is of course one most normal people are not gonna interact with. That is basically in many ways to some degree have a technology that facilitates assets through a public ledger and that has a consensus mechanism that can solve byzantine-general based problem especially on a decentralized network. That would be the more simplistic aspect of a blockchain though I am kinda pressuring it down a bit. More useful for the normal person is really the architectural technology that we have developed since then on top of this technology and yes that can at times relate to token but it isn't about how you get discounts and instead how do you automate those aspects internally and systematically. For example, you likely imagine that a NFT is just the picture however internally an NFT is a token and a smart contract and it can be attached to things beyond a picture such as other forms of data. With the most default smart contract you can automate that a percentage of what was spent will automatically be sent to the original minter without that needing to be stored longterm or accessible yet also still transparent through the ledger. One example a company in a ecosystem I am working on uses it for that goes against the grain is for creating the direction of creating open fertility access through enabling people to automate where their fertility data will go yet also then have that itself enable access to it. This however is simply the default form of a smart contract and other forms exist depending on what you build in something like clarity. Another form is stacking pools where a trustless system is built towards decentralized distribution of assets without one person needing to be holding the money. For a simplistic usage this could be for the game of fantasy football for example but for more complex usages this could be in the form of co-op or companies and how to structure and yet make more transparent things such as worker distributed systems of payment or other aspects.Of course some of these aspects may be more simply for the developer side as they are not all end layer solution and I think that confuses people because the truth is that blockchain isn't gonna always be a end layer solution. Often you may not even know you will be interesting with blockchain and in fact 81 out of the top 100 companies are already building blockchain related projects. also for additional info the stacks documents are some good help when it comes to explaining smart contracts https://docs.hiro.so/intro https://docs.stacks.co/docs/understand-stacks/ https://stacks.org/grants
However more complexity in systems such as advanced airmobility there are unique niches that groups such as NASA identify with specifically the need for increased decentralization. As increasingly different systems need decentralization as an aspect of their inherent structure, they will need systems such as blockchain and systems that build further from that to be able to facilitate the next transition of devices in how they interact with each other,how they are automated to do so and in many regards what enables them to functionally remain ongoing in a way you cant with a centralized network. This is especially true as we create more and more drone based application including localized emergency drone spaces for safety reason and their is a need for a more active network that can be facilitated from different nodes(I admit I am simplifying that down a bit)
Dan_Felder t1_j1bc25u wrote
>That is basically in many ways to some degree have a technology that facilitates assets through a public ledger and that has a consensus mechanism that can solve byzantine-general based problem especially on a decentralized network. That would be the more simplistic aspect of a blockchain though I am kinda pressuring it down a bit
Yes, this is a new way to do stuff we already do - the thing about reinventing wheels is that you need to explain why the new wheels are better, faster, or cheaper than the old wheels. A LOT better because getting people to switch standards is wildly expensive, even on something as simple as the keyboard layout. I'm sure you know that Dvorak hasn't really caught on despite the current layout being intentionally inefficient.
>but it isn't about how you get discounts and instead how do you automate those aspects internally and systematically.
Sounds like you're talking about smart contracts. If so, these are just computer programs that do stuff for all intents and purposes. They are also highly exploitable and lead to a lot of the hacks we know about. This is likely to only get more vulnerable when AI assistants can analyze them for vulnerabilities more efficiently. In general though, nothing about blockchain tech is necessary for an automated process to happen absent human decision makers based on a program. High-frequency traders have been doing this on the actual stockmarket for a while now. It's also just how computer programs work in general.
>For example, you likely imagine that a NFT is just the picture however internally an NFT is a token and a smart contract and it can be attached to things beyond a picture such as other forms of data.
NFTs are not pictures, NFTs are tokens that represent links to places on a ledger. They are similar to digital redemption codes we've seen for digital purchases for years now, the only meaningful difference is that they link to something on a blockchain database instead of a normal one.
>With the most default smart contract you can automate that a percentage of what was spent will automatically be sent to the original minter without that needing to be stored longterm or accessible yet also still transparent through the ledger.
Good example of the "we can already do this". Automated royalty payments are nothing new.
>One example a company in a ecosystem I am working on uses it for that goes against the grain is for creating the direction of creating open fertility access through enabling people to automate where their fertility data will go yet also then have that itself enable access to it.
Another good example of "we can already do this". This is just about automated computer programs, nothing unique to a blockchain.
>Another form is stacking pools where a trustless system is built towards decentralized distribution of assets without one person needing to be holding the money.
This always sounds nice in theory but in reality you almost always expose more vulnerabilities than you eliminate - because there needs to be a remedy to undo mistakes or mitigate hacking/fraud. That's why we see so many of these "trustless" systems being taken for all their assets or NFTs being stolen through the more common points of vulnerablity - such as phishing attempts or exploiting the new vulnerabilities introduced by relying on smart contracts in the first place (the very name 'smart contract' makes it sound new - in general it's just a rebranded trading algorithm).
>Often you may not even know you will be interesting with blockchain and in fact 81 out of the top 100 companies are already building blockchain related projects.
Naturally, it's been a free way to boost quarterly results. Some companies just changed their name to include the word "crypto" and so on and saw a boom. Many of them are also foolish enough to believe the snake oil salesman. What's fascinating to me is how so many companies can be building blockchain and NFT projects and similar, and yet can find so few meaningful use cases.
>However more complexity in systems such as advanced airmobility there are unique niches that groups such as NASA identify with specifically the need for increased decentralization.
What are these unique niches that demand decentralization, and how exactly does the blockchain deliver on these niches better?
TLDR: You listed a bunch of use cases for automated computer programs, mostly trading algorithms. These are neither new nor unique to blockchain ledgers.
runefar t1_j1bzn46 wrote
To be honest, it is actually much more that the financial use cases get higher prioritization while groups working on use cases that are more about building on top of these aspects of the technology don't get as much focus. In addition, it isn't really reinventing the wheel, rather it is integrating different parts into different systems. I actually partly agree that some of this stuff can already be done before but part of the goal is in fact specifically in doing the same things we could do before on a more decentralized network because of the weakness that a centralized network has and certain disadvantages that it has when you are working with different systems. Enabling access to both centralized and decentralized systems as a whole is in fact what many people desire in spaces such as advanced air mobility because it enables increased stability of the network as a whole for example and data to flow through it in a way that can not be as consistently acomplshied over a centralized network.
In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain. It is of course before you understand the technology and when you are more normalized to it but the truth is that all technology has a social hole in it. Ensuring that the vulnerability is more on the social hole rather than the technology itself is actually indicative of a stronger system technology wise and it shows that we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.
This is in fact one of the goal of blockchain technologies which is to ensure as much as realistically possible the hole in security are on the human side. Sadly that will always be a problem and that is also why more people must learn about the technology but most technology have huge holes in both sides and increasingly centralized services(as well as PoS) can be attacked with specific method. Considering these aspects gives us more options to build on in relation to cyber security of different data as well especially when we are discussing about the automation and transportation of it. Plus yes I would agree that it isn't perfect. To me I want people to build on it because we all have our own needs. That to me is what a architectural technology means. I don't think people should be forced to build on it but I do think they should be more willing to understand it and build on it and I think there are usages with its different consues making aspects that affect real aspects of our society yet at the same time, this is also just very architectural stuff that will be built on top of too. In addition, to some level aspects of decentralization can also offer interconnection with digitization of more analog based routines as well and with certain use cases in specific niches that may have its own specific niche too while still retaining of course an analog core. As we increasingly need some way to interconnect even our analog components into broader systems, there may be a place for fulfilling that function with how blockchain functions in some respect and that may also be a component of further system surrounding more aerospace based operations. To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.
With different companies they will end up building on it in different ways and towards different direction. This doesn't remove that there was an initial use case long time ago when blockchain was created. It just shows how its use has expanded and how it has become much more of an ecosystem. Even my own white paper is more focused on utilizing it towards more mechanical usages and around renewable usages.Different spheres will completely use it in different ways and experiment with it in different ways. It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using. Different systems bring different interaction after all and with that you can build on in different ways. But yeah I also wish more than the financial sector were getting hyped up so people would be seeing all the technology companies I am used to interacting with but sadly that is unlikely. In fact for example you compared smart contract to a trading algorithm and you aren't fully wrong too. But as I pointed out earlier that is literally just the most default smart contract. Not all smart contracts function that way. While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system. This means they may not always be seen as simply a replacement for trading algorithm but other elements of the system too and it is really that aspects which to some degree makes them quite useful. basically the ability to much more automate and systematized aspects that normally would be more difficult to do between parties yet on a basis where both parties can verify it as well including within the system itself. Maybe as I hinted earlier you should read a bit more about smart contract on the stacks page
Dan_Felder t1_j1c4t1g wrote
I'm passing over the first chunk because it doesn't give any concrete specific use cases. While you may be alluding to a real one, I've heard enough "this totally fixes X problem" when it actually doesn't once you get to specifics. For example:
>In addition, to some degree I actually don't think your point about where the vulnerabilities is, is in fact a negative towards blockchain[...] we can then begin to work on fixing on the social side of it rather than solely worrying about the technology side.
If you're trying to stop your house flooding when it rains, you shouldn't worry too much about making the door-seams watertight as long as there's a gigantic hole in your roof. The point is that the added 'security' offered by blockchain in most cases is not meaningfully making anything more secure, because there are massive vulnerabilities either way that are exploited far more often.
It's actually worse than that though, because the unique characteristics of the blockchain actually make things worse for phishing - since blockchain has a much harder time reverting fraudulent transactions, and the lack of a human layer right now makes it harder to spot fraud in progress too. So it's like ripping more material OFF the roof in order to board up the doorseams. Senseless way to keep the rain out.
​
>To be honest though most companies I have intereacted with more at the moment prefer to focus around the automation of data side and the decentralization of data as they see that as necessary for their next generation of operation due to limitations they have encountered within centeralized systems.
Sounds like you believe you have a lot of examples of limitations encountered within centralized systems that are best solved by decentralized systems that require blockchain. Mind listing your best one?
​
>It is fine if you don't want to use it, but to say it has no usage is much more simply appealing to your own normalization around the technology you are used to using.
I say it has no use cases because no one has ever been able to articulate a meaningful use case that can't be done better or cheaper without it. There are some extremely narrow use cases but nothing close to what the blockchain pushers claim. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of usecases I've ever heard anyone suggest that seem to require blockchain or are more efficient with blockchain.
The problem is that a blockchain ledger is just fundamentally a bigger, slower, less efficient version of a normal ledger. That's why there are no usecases.
Removing the "trusted central authority" is an illusion. While control of the network can be spread out to people that pay for the computing power or tokens, you can also do this via "buying voting shares". Buying equity in a bank is not a new idea.
It is extremely difficult to make the transactions truly irreversible and the ledgers impossible to fork or rollback without... well... Removing the ability for people to fix problems or roll back fraud. Which is FAR more common a problem and harder to handle within official channels than a centralized authority going rogue and ignoring its shareholders or fiduciary responsibilities under the law.
"The system is bad" is not a sales pitch to replace it with a worse, less efficient, more fraud-prone system.
>While the most default smart contract functions in such a way that every time the token is sent it executes a percentage back to the original minter, other contracts are in fact programmed to execute different aspects and be automated around other aspects within a system.
Yes, for example the automated algorithims of High Frequency Trading firms are monumnetally complex and execute in microseconds. The problem with this argument is that saying "programming has use cases" is not an argument for blockchain. Blockchain requires programming, programming doesn't require blockchain.
The same flawed argument is made in the NFT space, when people start talking about being able to sell digital assets to other players for real money being a use case; when people have been doing that for over a decade already in various games.
runefar t1_j1ez6l3 wrote
Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective. I just am still trying to balance this with a generalized take as well because different space will have different needs and because we shouldn't simplify a technology that is meant to be built on. A technology that you put on your roof is in many ways much more of an end layer solution. Having been in several programs developing things like it, often there are IP it is interconnected with too that are not useless yet are still more relevant for the manufacture than the end layer for example aspects that affect aerogel design and similar aspects.
Also admittedly, part of why I keep it generalized is because I don't want to go into details about every single industry themselves because I already have wall of text. Basically to keep it simple but a desired aspect of the model advanced aerospace is the concept of an airspace that is actively ongoing in our ecosystem around us helping out in emergency systems. In many cases a drone can be communicated by with a centralized network but as the aerospace becomes more and more complex, the benefit towards having a decentralized network is the ability for each unit to much more pass data seemlesly back and forth between each other and act as nodes as part of a greater network. For those who are focused on researching the intercommunication of automation of drone, decentralization is often seen as a natural next step by many NASA scientists I have talked to and those who work on different drone related projects. The first step is of course increasingly mesh networking many devices and interconnecting via that sense creating more FANET devices that can send peer to peer information and creating a mesh network of information that way. Then increasingly the usage of decentralized native technologies like blockchain is in some sense partly to do what you actually criticized them for doing which is do what they were doing before just automating them and doing it on a decentralized public ledger. This may not be important for your project, but it affects how different systems can be built especially when we are talking about systems where there can be a temporary disconnect of the network and a reconnect such as in emergency situations. Conseus mechanism based aspects around that situation actually do potentially lead to bigger changes around what we can with say emergency fire trucks that are operating on different frequency and farther away from the city and how systems of interaction that be built in around them. As well, it more and more is becoming relevant to potentially affecting locations that are currently stuck in a digital divide as places like indigenous population are actually quite big contributors to building in the ecosystem too.
In addition, in the NFT space, you are fully right that isn't a completely new thing and I wish more people acknowledged that. I mean heck I remember when people were hoarding CD for the same reason they were talking about NFTs and crypto. In fact I find it is more people outside the NFT space who don't acknowledge that. People within the NFT space may instead use it for different community application or they may be building their own application around the technology such as my friend mirlo is around her studio based application of smartist. All of this has to work with the social systems of course, but different people see this as solving different needs like Mirlo actually see this as enabling more visibility for digital artists and the ability to create a more studio like environment for artists than was previously able to be had in the digital space. Other more use it for selling community access for example or just for selling the NFT themselves. Further more other use the NFT to automate data that so that it can be sent to doctor but never exclusively remain in the hands of doctors as well as be transparent about where it has gone and yet private giving more access attempting to create new networks around fertility treatment and automation. Interestingly even the UN has their own take on blockchain https://unite.un.org/sites/unite.un.org/files/emerging-tech-series-blockchain.pdf and of course countries like estonia use it along with x_chain as part of their healthcare https://investinestonia.com/business-opportunities/e-health/healthcare/
Dan_Felder t1_j1f1q39 wrote
>Actually I kinda did mention multiple but it seems that you want to get stuck up on viewing this from a financial only perspective.
Nope, it's just that I'm giving examples of automated processes that already exist without the blockchain, and using finance as an example is an easy one.
You have unfortunately not provided use cases in detail for most of your use cases, which means I can't trust they're actually solutions to real problems requiring blockchain. You'd need to explain the "how" and demonstrate that it's better than alternatives with a convincing case. If you're worried about walls of text, I suggest writing more substance as generalized claims without specifics are not useful or convincing.
I can easily believe peer-to-peer communication has applications in certain industries, it's been used for a long time, but I doubt these require blockchain. If the goal is increased efficiency, blockchain generally slows everything down by definition. If the goal is simply "decentralization" then you can do it more easily without blockchain in most applications. I doubt firetrucks have a big need for "trustless" algorithm decision making.
I feel like I've covered the nonsense of the NFT aspect of this before, so I won't do so again in detail - but NFTs do nothing meaningful to protect artists. In fact, rightclick save into minting an NFT linking to the same image is a common way NFTs increased the amount of art theft going on.
I also find it's weird that you keep complaining about me responding to the financial use cases and keep providing me financial use cases - as this UN link is just a restatement of "blockchain creates trustless decentralized immunatable records of ownership". Like your examples of royalties and automated trading, this comes back around to finance and the problems with phishing and fraud are still massive here.
I actually think the UN has reason to be interested in blockchain because they often deal with one of my few usecases I do see as relevant: which is they deal with disputes between countries and political/financial powers where there's no higher governing authority to appeal to. The idea of a blockchain handling some of these issues for them would make them happy. However, the problems persist with the power dynamics as they always do and I've covered elseqhere in my posts. Won't keep restating them.
Creating backups to backups to backups of government records is already doable without blockchain tech as well and not relevant for most industries. It's also one of my few use-cases I consider semi-valid. The BIG problem here is that the expense of migrating all the existing data to a blockchain based solution is so inefficient and risks a lot of problems compared ot just saving and printing more backups.
Migrating data infrastructures is a pretty colossal endeavor and the rewards would have to be gigantic to justify it. Some governments will do it even if inefficient of course because it can enrich benefactors.
runefar t1_j1ezy58 wrote
Also an example of one NASA blockchain project https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/20190000022 though naturally they tend to primarily experiment with hyperledger at the moment so using a private ledger, but with similar other aspects. There is some different arguments I would say personally on public versus private ledgers and in fact how you can create networks that fulfill the mix of the needs of both but that it is a whole other story. Be aware though this is likely not one of their priority investigations of course and even at NASA different departments will be unaware of the investigations of others even when it seems like they should be investigating the same aspect. I know this from personal experience and it can be so awkward lol XD but NTRS host a good amount of blockchain relevant project mainly from names. Of course some on NTRS to look out for are those from competitions but most are from ames
Really though as I emphasized earlier, this is more an ecosystem with both its own benefits and difficulties. It isn't solely about a transition to decentralization though for different areas that may come with different benefits. Creating further aspects to facilitate different needs sometimes exactly the same needs in ways we couldn't do before because different interaction do require reformating our system in different ways at times.
And yes, we shouldn't be overly confident in security either, as I emphasized earlier I do believe that account for the human side is very important. In fact that is often my issue with a lot of policies around blockchain which is that they are overly standardized.
Also what you said isn't exactly true about reverting transactions but that can be network dependent. In fact, It can be easier to track transaction on blockchain without indirectly messing up anyone up unlike on the banking network where if someone steal money the people who are along the path also have a high chance of having their money reverted too. In the cases where there has been a direct to reversion, blockchain turned out to be able to be better than the banking systems at it because it didn't put the people along the way at risk as well. Interestingly cases where it is held in a centralized institution rather are an exception though because they are in fact not decentralized and are in fact closer to our centralized banking system funny enough and those have been where the biggest scams are. It isn't perfect though and there is difficulties and that is why we need to make more people understand it too and not overstandardize our regulation, but build off the technology too so that the laws can not be solely based on how the fiancance was done previously or how fiance is done but how the technology works and is likely to develop too to be able to better counter that problem. It goes into this whole thing about pseudoanonymity versus it being coded into the ledger and what that means from a more functional standpoint when we get into situations like that(of course actually it will also have been visible that it was moved too in the code). In addition this also goes into the whole thing about the difference between an architectural technology versus a system on top. Even bitcoin can be viewed as an architectural technology and more complicated systems can and potentially should be built on top with visions of those aspects though their are arguments for why or why not as well as different programs,
Dan_Felder t1_j1f2an4 wrote
I don't know enough about the tech to evaluate this, but one of the weaknesses of blockchain from a security standpoint is that you inherently spread the information in more places so all the computers can check it. I have doubts it's genuinely the best way to keep information anonymous vs other forms of decentralization. Again, I don't know enough about this situation, but I find it amusing how the two major aspects of Blockchain people often push are the "transparency" on the one hand and "total lack of transparency" on the other.
runefar t1_j1f6dcf wrote
Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technologies. It also isn't transparency versus total lack of transparency and I try to explain this to so many people because it seems like people have an issue imagining a binary that doesn't exist. It is more that the ledger itself interests as a form of transparency around the transactions that are occuring while you can have more protection around the data itself that is being actively transported. You can not get this level of protection with a centralized system because if someone successfully penetrates the centralized system they now have access to your data. With a decentralized system, it is as if there are multiple nodes delegated to different tasks as well as interconnected within a mesh style.
When they disconnect from the network, the network as a whole is still up and if they did any transaction peer to peer off the network when they reconnect to the network, the conceus mechanism will go through the process it needs to do to verify those transactions)done by stacking, mining or in a PoX both). This means even a network that operated its transactions off the internet through peer to peer transaction can then be enabled to be settled within the network through the conseus mechanism when it eventually does reconnect.
Literally all forms of decentralization could be described by "spread the information in more places". Also it is their miners or stacker that are running a cryptographic conseus mechanism to dedicate that energy towards verifying the rest of the network. They are much more facilitating the flowthrough of the network than looking at what exactly is in your data. It is more about conseus of the transactions that occurred within the network
​
Dan_Felder t1_j1f8dw4 wrote
>Oh so you just don't have a general understanding of decentralization or perhaps even mesh technolo--
The stuff you just posted is super basic. I just don't have the arrogance to dig into an academic paper on a specific argument for a use case and analyze it against the technical and security risks of other forms of securing data in an industry I've never worked in, one which has a lot of complex and difficult-to-foresee incentives, limitations, etc. There's too big an information black hole for me to feel comfortable making a judgment about the various competing cases here in the practical world of solving real world problems more efficiently than other problems.
I've seen enough people confidently asserting blockchain will replace every industry and pretty much nothing but wild failure - even in the things they were *specifically* designed for; securing transactions and protecting artists. Both have been calamitous failures, as the inventor of the tech admitted to.
I have also already said that backing up data without governing transactions is a possible use case and may have special interest for governments, since there is no need to reverse transactions or deal with the other downstream problems when you're just collecting data - and I already said that decentralized models have use cases.
I doubt it's efficient to do this with exsiting government records vs other options for securing them, but it's possible that highly sensitive intelligence data that is building new networks from the ground-up anyway makes sense to use them. However, I don't know enough about the internal incentives, programs, day to day work, alternative models, etc to make a clear value judgment and don't pretend I do.
runefar t1_j1ff9zg wrote
Fair enough though when you talk about failure remember that it is important to remember that all technology also works with the social systems too and that many of those failures are more to do the fact that we have to over time both adapt on both sides too. That has to be considered as well in what a failure is. Is it a failure in the technology or a failure for both the social and technology to mesh.... but yes there are things to be built on and interegrations to be done better.... that is why ecosystems exist afterall
if you want to talk more just dm so we don't bother anyone else. see you around. I may have information to provide you but you are in fact indirectly being less specific about information you are asking for then you realize so naturally I am starting with the basic when it sounds like you don't grasps key elements. Even more different systems will be more or less hyper specific about intersection to some degree and depending on how you can envision a system I may or may not be able to describe how it is done simply because I don't know about the other technology requirements of the system and then how they may work together. That in the end affects aspects of the solution too and how they manifest as well in a design
runefar t1_j1b9i19 wrote
also for some stacks job if that is what you are into too look them out. Stacks is a more technology based sphere interconnected with a wide global group building on different networks and different groups https://www.stacks.co/jobs
Dan_Felder t1_j1bcu63 wrote
Thanks, but don't worry - I get a web3 recruiter contacting me at least once a week already.
insite t1_j19k3kw wrote
Tech companies are working to solve problems we don't realize exists and are increasing rapidly. If we can ignore nationalism or politics, I want to point to the rise of China over the last 40 years. An amazing feat, whereas the US took 150+ years. Both efforts took vast amounts of concrete, steel, and other resources. It became clear the word can't sustain another rise like that, and the ecological harm is at the top of that list.
Meaning, there will be an increasing wealth gap in the world at a time the world needs to work together the most. We're too interconnected. What happens in one country affects the others. I'll get to why this matters.
Technology is a great equalizer though. I have a smartphone, and a billionaires have smartphones. They probably have better service and apps, but we both have smartphones. Same with tablets and computers. With AR & VR, we'll be able to see multiple screens, rather than multiple monitors.
Take the logical further, like how nice a person's home is. If a person sees and feels like their home is cozy or spacious, it doesn't matter if it's not as physically impressive. It just needs to provide shelter and allow for good hygiene and food. Just like Internet speeds and cell phones, it will change the definition of "living standards". The benefits cannot be overstated.
The possibilities are near limitless. Training for hostile environments. Heck, training athletes to be winners, as you can see the psychological harm a mental stigma can have on a career. Improving the way we feel about our environment, without simultaneously destroying it.
Meta's name change connected them to the Metaverse in the eyes of the public. Meta is facing some significant challenges; anti-trust, cookies dying, facebook losing users, spooked investors. Those are all incentives for Mark Zuckerberg to push for the next technology. He was even warned by an investor that the browser isn't replaceable yet, and he should do continue developing some for that too.
Mark is relying on Ray Kurzwweil's Law of Accelerating Returns. Meta doesn't have to come up with all the tech themselves. Most tech companies will be involved in some way. Take Epic's Unreal Engine 5 for example. Mark may be facing the sort of problem Bill Gates faced in the late 90's; seeing where the future leads but not knowing how long it will take to get there.
Changing the name to Meta was a shrewd move, but it very well may push companies to adopt a different name. Tim Cook has gushed about AR, and has never said the word Metaverse publicly. He pointed out that few would want to be in VR for more than a couple hours. They are direct competitors afterall, and Mark said both companies are vying to shape the Metaverse into their own visions of it.
To pay for the development requires widespread adoption of the stepping stone technologies. How do you achieve that with a public soured on new tech? By making technology more democratic. Think OpenAI, ChatGPT, Stable Diffusion, MidJourney. We'll be using those to create the world we want to see and experience. The Metaverse will be partly our own creations, those of our friends, family, and others around the world.
Think about Superman and Batman, both DC Comics characters, in a Marvel movie. Which company wins? They both stand to make huge profits. They just need to establish guidelines so that Superman and Batman act like themselves, but they work in a Marvel Universe. Allowing users fo take their characters from one game to another with equipment from a third means more companies stand to benefit, and so do users. I couldn't imagine Mario in a Mortal Kombat setting, but I can picture a Minecraft creeper sneaking up on Luigi.
Most social media in its current form, like Facebook and Twitter, profit from keeping us apart. That tech can be retooled to improve our interactions together in MR environments. Since we're going into space for good, we'll need XR tech to keep up with friends and family. Blockchain will be critical to adding a sort of permanence to trades and changes, like digital currency exchanges. Blockchain can also provide a digital markers to track trolls and fraud across platforms Oh, and HTTP/3 would like to weigh in on the discussion about web3 as a scam.
Yes, we'll adopt the technology, Metaverse, or whatever we call it. It's only overhyped momentarily.
- Edited for grammar
Dan_Felder t1_j19lzaf wrote
A lot more of the world will make sense to you if you stop assuming people are playing 4D chess.
Blockchain has had a staggering amount of time, money, and brainpower invested into finding any meaningful usecases for it, and nothing meaningful has materialized. People will claim an endless list of use cases but once you get downt o specifics of things blockchain can do that can't be done better or cheaper without it, they all shrivel up or are based on empty air. I've spoken to endless blockchain-pumpers, a bunch have tried to recruit me to their companies.
It's not a secret they have no use cases, that's why the new wave after the crypto crashes has been to say "hey customers care about utility now, we should... find some?"
Blockchain was just a digital snakeoil, and I mean that nearly literally - as it was sold as a cure-all that would mysteriously disrupt every industry. It was a classic Ponzi scheme mixed with a speculator boom/bust cycle - incredibly predictable.
The concept of a "metaverse" is almost impossible to debunk because it's an ooze - it shifts to endless definitions because when you nail them down outside the VR or AR component they sound like like World of Warcraft and Second Life, and that's not "new" so it's not cool enough to get them excited.
Will VR and AR have some future applications? Sure, of course. But people pitching a "metaverse" as a new version of the internet are talking about experiencing the internet as a VR experience and that's just really, really bad as a user experience.
The genuinely "disrupt everything" tech is going to happen due to LLM work like ChatGPT because all of software is trying to tell a computer what to do. Computers can display infinite possible digital experiences, but they need to know what to display. LLMs allow people to instruct a computer through natural language rather than fine-tuned tools to get to the basics, and if a computer can export other things into natural language the tools can talk to eachother... Which has inane potential.
That is the most likely thing that leads to a real "web 3.0".
dhezl t1_j1at9fv wrote
As a software architect and 20-year industry vet, this is almost 100% exactly my take. Well said.
insite t1_j1bakod wrote
Blockchain is not a cryptocurrency. Cryptocurrencies are not blockchain; blockchain is their primary underlying technology. Blockchain is being integrated into most industries in some way or another, and it's already being used on large parts of the web.
The US has a digital currency in the works. It is not a crypocurrency either - rather a CBDC, or Central Bank Digital Currency. For a purely digital currency to exist requires a more closed-loop system. Blockchain is a critical technology in making that possible.
Dan_Felder t1_j1bck36 wrote
Blockchain is not necessary in making a purely digital currency. They exist in videogames all the time. Money laundering even happens through buying and selling videogame currencies or items.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments