Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Building for the Blockchain

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 337 posts

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#221

Post by Zalastax »

pmontra wrote: post #201
hyperion2010 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verifiable oracles are extremely hard to create. In fact I think that the creation of verifiable oracles is the single biggest challenge facing science and engineering. Full disclosure, I am quite biased about this since part of my PhD work is to create a language to specify measurement processes. How do you know whether the numbers you are getting reflect something about the real world? How do you know that your dat…

Maybe I'm just dumb, but is this a bigger problem than it is offchain? Data is forged all the time, we have fake news, people lie, people are jailed with false accusations. If the owner of the fridge in your example eventually discovers that the sensor has been tampered with, s/he can get the money back using the judicial system offchain, maybe reflected in some inchain contract. Answering to my own initial question,…

The major difference is that offchain we use contracts verified (and written to be verified) by humans. For a fridge that might mean that you need to send photo evidence and have a mechanic look at the fridge. In case of disagreement a human court will decide the outcome. It's not always going to get it right, but it's a lot harder to scam systematically. For smart contracts to bring the value of machine verified contracts without human intervention we need the data provided to the system to be verified. Without verification that all parties agree on we will always need human intervention in case of a dispute.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#222

Post by [deleted] »

fragsworth wrote: post #182
davesque wrote: post #162

A blockchain ensures that some sequence of agreements was made in a way that everyone can trust. If everyone keeps their secret keys secure and solely in their possession, then no activity can be forged on the network by any significant likelihood. Anywhere this concept has value, a blockchain has value. That's all there is to it. The rest is fairy dust and noise. I don't really follow a lot of the discussion in this…

It seems like in most cases, the tokens are being used as a way for the developers to get funding to implement their project without the bureaucracy and costs of doing a real IPO. That would be fine on its own, but they're almost all pretending this is not the reason for it, and that the token is necessary. This is an obvious lie in nearly every case when you dig into the details. Nearly every dapp that has its own t…

[deleted]

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#223

Post by jhwang5 »

felipeccastro wrote: post #215
jhwang5 wrote: post #172

In general, it's a red flag to see people promoting some technology or idea without concrete, end to end examples, and circular logic. It's okay for the authors to make speculations, but I am disappointed at their excessive handwaiving in answering just two simple questions. a) Do "dapps" really to use their own tokens instead of USD or even ETH to function? b) How are closed ecosystems that utilize "utility tokens"…

a) they could use ETH, but if you launch your own token you get two advantages: - funding (ICO) - an economic incentive for attracting early users (give tokens for using your app in the promise that they will be worth more in the future) b) if a user earns tokens that value over time, that's a huge win: imagine if all the time you spend on apps today, generating valuable data to a few companies, would generate in tur…

a) Or... wait for it... they could ask for payment in crypto, fiat, whatever, rather than printing their own chuck-e-cheese tokens. Yes, we get it, ICO allows the DAPP to fund itself, and it's a great value prop for the founders, because they can raise capital on the strength of a 15 page paper, as opposed to having real users.

b) "closed" means literally useless outside. Can you use your Cobinhood tokens at any other exchange? No, it's because Cobinhood tokens are only good for consuming the features of Cobinhood.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#224

Post by joosters »

felipeccastro wrote: post #217
joosters wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The steemit coins, as I understand it, have little to no other use (unless 'speculation/gambling' is a use case) so they don't need to be crypto coins at all. Instead they could be magic internet points that are all accounted for and transferable on steemit's website, with options there to buy more or to sell them for cash.

That’s like saying bitcoin could be a Money table on my personal database. It’s not the same at all. These coins are unique, wont be tampered, work on exchanges, and don’t depend on you trusting the startup that created it.

Indeed, that's the key difference. Steemit coins inherently require trust in steemit, since without the website's existence, the coins have no use at all. As everyone is implicitly having to trust steemit, there's no benefit in running a blockchain.

As you say, the key point of blockchains, like bitcoin, is that there is no central trusted entity. So, like steemit has done, if you add a trusted person or company, the main feature of the currency is wiped out and there's no point in having a blockchain in the system.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#225

Post by wsy »

pmontra wrote: post #201
hyperion2010 wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Verifiable oracles are extremely hard to create. In fact I think that the creation of verifiable oracles is the single biggest challenge facing science and engineering. Full disclosure, I am quite biased about this since part of my PhD work is to create a language to specify measurement processes. How do you know whether the numbers you are getting reflect something about the real world? How do you know that your dat…

Maybe I'm just dumb, but is this a bigger problem than it is offchain? Data is forged all the time, we have fake news, people lie, people are jailed with false accusations. If the owner of the fridge in your example eventually discovers that the sensor has been tampered with, s/he can get the money back using the judicial system offchain, maybe reflected in some inchain contract. Answering to my own initial question,…

If you anyway assume a legal system to resolve issues, then just go for traditional contracts and money transactions. Why then bother with blockchain-based contracts in the first place?

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#226

Post by ThomPete »

brandonmenc wrote: post #204
ThomPete wrote: post #189

The negativity in this thread reminds me of the internet in the early nineties. If someone had said that one day there will be a company that does billions by allowing people to fundamentally share their cat pictures and send each other happy birthday messages people would have laughed their asses off. The blockchain can be seen as a giant immutable feed. Make of that what you will.

It reminds me more of the P2P mania of the early 2000s - P2P was going to decentralize and revolutionize absolutely everything, and well, it didn't. It stayed in its narrow lane, providing benefits where it made sense.

Narrow lane? I think that's a matter of definition.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#227

Post by ThomPete »

joosters wrote: post #218
ThomPete wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A secondhand market no relying on a centralized player is the goal, someone who cant control what can be sold and resold. That cannot be done without de-centealized network.

The only project that comes somewhat close to that is OpenBazaar, and that is buggy and unwieldy, despite four years of development and millions in funding. The implementation requires a complex mess of software installs (even for potential buyers!), trusted moderators (how exactly do you trust a random unknown username on a pseudo-anonymous market anyway?) and an appalling user experience. The installation page tell…

You are proving my point. It should not be in control at any one company specifically.

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#228

Post by contingencies »

davesque wrote: post #162

A blockchain ensures that some sequence of agreements was made in a way that everyone can trust. If everyone keeps their secret keys secure and solely in their possession, then no activity can be forged on the network by any significant likelihood. Anywhere this concept has value, a blockchain has value. That's all there is to it. The rest is fairy dust and noise. I don't really follow a lot of the discussion in this…

Upgrade cost of network complexity: The Internet has smart edges ... and a simple core. Adding an new Internet service is just a matter of distributing an application ... Compare this to voice, where one has to upgrade the entire core. - RFC3439 (2002)

From http://github.com/globalcitizen/taoup

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#229

Post by Crye »

Here's my two cents. Is it a fad and a bubble? Most likely.

But do not discount value that the token creates as a network effect. Think of the currency as an investment vehicle to reward people who jump on to the network first. Consider Facebook, the first hundred customers are billions of times more valuable then the last hundred.

Once this fad dies, people should start joining the networks they plan to use, and early adopters will be rewarded for helping creating the network.

On top of that, it decentralizes the control of the network but temporarily provides capital for it's creators. It does not ensure that their system will belong to them in purpituity. Which is a good thing!

Re: Building for the Blockchain

#230

Post by amalag »

fragsworth wrote: post #182
davesque wrote: post #162

A blockchain ensures that some sequence of agreements was made in a way that everyone can trust. If everyone keeps their secret keys secure and solely in their possession, then no activity can be forged on the network by any significant likelihood. Anywhere this concept has value, a blockchain has value. That's all there is to it. The rest is fairy dust and noise. I don't really follow a lot of the discussion in this…

It seems like in most cases, the tokens are being used as a way for the developers to get funding to implement their project without the bureaucracy and costs of doing a real IPO. That would be fine on its own, but they're almost all pretending this is not the reason for it, and that the token is necessary. This is an obvious lie in nearly every case when you dig into the details. Nearly every dapp that has its own t…

Yes many tokens are being used as shares and trying to circumvent securities law.
Post reply on HN