I'm not an expert on anything discussed in this essay, but here are some problems with it based on what I think I know:
• "It is much harder for an oppressive government to arbitrarily seize (or even locate) someone’s digital property."
Cryptocurrencies are safe from small, less-authoritarian governments. However, most of the world's Bitcoin mining operations are located in China. Theoretically, if the CCP were to seize control of enough of that mining power, they could prevent any Bitcoin mining and other transactions throughout the world (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp)—essentially freezing people's digital assets—though people smarter than me argue about how realistic that scenario is. The CCP probably wouldn't use it for individuals, but it seems plausible in some circumstances for them to attempt large-scale disruption.
• "Crypto Protects Online Privacy"
This point is a bit of illogical hand-waving: Some applications of encryption enhance privacy, cryptocurrencies use encryption, therefore cryptocurrencies are private. While it is true that cryptocurrency transactions are generally more private than, say, using a credit card so a bank can sell data on your purchase history, their privacy is not as infallible as people tend to think. There's been a fair amount of research on Bitcoin de-anonymization, and a few years ago, Sandia National Laboratories announced that they were working on a Bitcoin de-anonymization tool for the Department of Homeland Security (https://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/2016/19-08/bitcoin.html).
• "Lawyers and judges are fallible and can be fickle. Smart contracts built on blockchain technology are not."
This is a pretty disingenuous claim. Smart contracts are just a particular kind of computer programs, and of course a computer program only does exactly what you tell it to. However, the programmers who write smart contracts are as fickle as lawyers and judges. Writing software that does exactly what you want it to is hard—think of all the times your computer has frozen for no apparent reason—and unlike most software, there is no way I know of to update a running smart contract.
I think your first and third points are good. Regarding the second, I would agree that Bitcoin specifically is privacy-enhancing but not infallible. But I would also point out that the same is not true of a number of other cryptocurrencies which are truly anonymous by virtue of the cryptography they use. Of course, each of these currencies has its own particular characteristics which may make it a poor substitute for Bitcoin. But I think it’s very fair to say that cryptocurrencies as a class show a lot of promise in terms of protecting online privacy.
• "…see how it cracked the Byzantine Generals Problem, a previously unsolved problem in computer science whose brilliant resolution enabled the entire field of blockchain research."
Yes, Bitcoin does include a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem, but it been solved in other ways years before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault#Early_solutions). It's dishonest to imply that it was an unsolved problem until Bitcoin came along, and it makes me wonder what else I can't trust in this essay.
The point is, while it's one thing to solve a problem, it's beyond next level to create an entirely new world paradigm as a result of solving it. But it's understandable that many people will want to take their blocks and go home. The fast track is not for everybody.
Nakamoto's technical breakthrough enabled Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus in an asynchronous environment with an open network, which any node can join or leave at any time. We didn’t know how to do this before. So this algorithm greatly expanded the scope of what we can do with decentralized systems, and I think the substance of the sentence holds.
However, you could rephrase as follows: “...how it cracked the Byzantine Generals Problem, an important problem in computer science whose novel solution enabled the entire field of blockchain research.”
I'm not an expert on anything discussed in this essay, but here are some problems with it based on what I think I know:
• "It is much harder for an oppressive government to arbitrarily seize (or even locate) someone’s digital property."
Cryptocurrencies are safe from small, less-authoritarian governments. However, most of the world's Bitcoin mining operations are located in China. Theoretically, if the CCP were to seize control of enough of that mining power, they could prevent any Bitcoin mining and other transactions throughout the world (https://www.investopedia.com/terms/1/51-attack.asp)—essentially freezing people's digital assets—though people smarter than me argue about how realistic that scenario is. The CCP probably wouldn't use it for individuals, but it seems plausible in some circumstances for them to attempt large-scale disruption.
• "Crypto Protects Online Privacy"
This point is a bit of illogical hand-waving: Some applications of encryption enhance privacy, cryptocurrencies use encryption, therefore cryptocurrencies are private. While it is true that cryptocurrency transactions are generally more private than, say, using a credit card so a bank can sell data on your purchase history, their privacy is not as infallible as people tend to think. There's been a fair amount of research on Bitcoin de-anonymization, and a few years ago, Sandia National Laboratories announced that they were working on a Bitcoin de-anonymization tool for the Department of Homeland Security (https://www.sandia.gov/news/publications/labnews/articles/2016/19-08/bitcoin.html).
• "Lawyers and judges are fallible and can be fickle. Smart contracts built on blockchain technology are not."
This is a pretty disingenuous claim. Smart contracts are just a particular kind of computer programs, and of course a computer program only does exactly what you tell it to. However, the programmers who write smart contracts are as fickle as lawyers and judges. Writing software that does exactly what you want it to is hard—think of all the times your computer has frozen for no apparent reason—and unlike most software, there is no way I know of to update a running smart contract.
I think your first and third points are good. Regarding the second, I would agree that Bitcoin specifically is privacy-enhancing but not infallible. But I would also point out that the same is not true of a number of other cryptocurrencies which are truly anonymous by virtue of the cryptography they use. Of course, each of these currencies has its own particular characteristics which may make it a poor substitute for Bitcoin. But I think it’s very fair to say that cryptocurrencies as a class show a lot of promise in terms of protecting online privacy.
Oops, I forgot one.
• "…see how it cracked the Byzantine Generals Problem, a previously unsolved problem in computer science whose brilliant resolution enabled the entire field of blockchain research."
Yes, Bitcoin does include a solution to the Byzantine Generals Problem, but it been solved in other ways years before (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault#Early_solutions). It's dishonest to imply that it was an unsolved problem until Bitcoin came along, and it makes me wonder what else I can't trust in this essay.
The point is, while it's one thing to solve a problem, it's beyond next level to create an entirely new world paradigm as a result of solving it. But it's understandable that many people will want to take their blocks and go home. The fast track is not for everybody.
Nakamoto's technical breakthrough enabled Byzantine fault-tolerant consensus in an asynchronous environment with an open network, which any node can join or leave at any time. We didn’t know how to do this before. So this algorithm greatly expanded the scope of what we can do with decentralized systems, and I think the substance of the sentence holds.
However, you could rephrase as follows: “...how it cracked the Byzantine Generals Problem, an important problem in computer science whose novel solution enabled the entire field of blockchain research.”
More:
https://www.preethikasireddy.com/post/lets-take-a-crack-at-understanding-distributed-consensus
Thanks for the clarification.