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

Introducing A16Z Crypto

a16zcrypto.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 312 posts

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#201

Post by Geee »

curuinor wrote: post #35
chrisco255 wrote: post #14

I totally agree with A16Z here. Blockchain skepticism is not hard to find on HN and beyond. First, the ecosystem is vast and evolving quickly. If you've "tuned out" by dismissing blockchain, then don't be surprised when your industry gets disrupted in 5-10 years. I think we'll begin to see business logic open-sourced on the blockchain. For example, existing SaaS model incentivizes closed-source, centrally managed rep…

It has already been 10 years. Bitcoin was released the same year as Android. Which one has had more impact?

99% of smartphone use is not impactful, as it's mostly a gamified addiction-driven surveillance machine. I'd say that smartphones have generally set us back a few decades. Bitcoin, on the other hand, has already freed more people than any other technology before it, and has shown the path for a better future.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#202

Post by seibelj »

Max_aaa wrote: post #197
narrator wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The best thing I've seen blockchains used for, besides currency, is as an integration platform for a non-centralized supply chain. There's really no money in it, since there aren't any gatekeepers, but that's sort of the point. The idea is that the farmer picks his carrots, puts them in a box and sends them off to the carrot juice guy. When he does this he puts a upc code on the side of the carrot box and then puts t…

How is this being solved by a block-chain? You still need to trust all the people in the production line (Farmer, Juicer, Seller and not to mention that transportation guys) that brought the bottle of juice to market to actually record things correctly into the used block-chain. The trust required in the data entry "Link/Step" basically results in the use of a block-chain to be pointless, as trust is already a requir…

The blockchain makes it extraordinarily difficult to tamper with post facto. As the ledger is distributed with multiple parties and each block is hashed, it’s exponentially difficult to change later. This means that no centralized entity can cook the books if a situation arises.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#203

Post by wolfgke »

madeofpalk wrote: post #77
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I pointed to the solution instead of the problem. I'm still an engineer at heart, it seems! What should I have said instead? Centralization of data? Unreliability of single-points-of-failure?

Solve an actual, real life problem. All I see are Long Island Ice Tea Blockchain Corp. and Walmat saying that they're using blockchain to help their supply chain (whatever that means). The reality is is that Blockchain is no longer new. Compare it to iPhone - they both roughly came out at the same time, yet we're still having the same conversations - "What problem does Blockchain solve" - while the iPhone found its p…

> The reality is is that Blockchain is no longer new. Compare it to iPhone - they both roughly came out at the same time, yet we're still having the same conversations - "What problem does Blockchain solve" - while the iPhone found its place in the market.

I still do not understand what kind of problem the iPhone solves (seriously!), while I can imagine quite well what kind of problem Bitcoin attempted to solve when it came out. If you want to understand it, consider the coinbase parameter in the Genesis block:

> https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Genesis_block

"The Times 03/Jan/2009 Chancellor on brink of second bailout for banks".

This summarizes quite well the situation at that time: People feared that the dollar and euro system was on the brink of collapse; because of the bailouts and money printing, people feared inflation; the central banks became highly distrusted institutions etc.

So at that time, a currency system that

- is not based on a central trusted institution

- has a limit on maximum amount of currency that can exist (so it is free of inflation)

became a very desired one. We know that history turned out somewhat different - most people would argue that the trust in the national currencies has at least partly been reestablished. On the other hand, at least the original bitcoin protocol was eventually not able to abide its promises (e.g. scaling) or properties that people projected into it (anonymity; Bitcoin was never anonymous, only pseudonymous).

So to me it is quite obvious what kind of Bitcoin attempted to solve and why at that time this solution seemed quite attractive. From today's perspective, we can probably say that Bitcoin - as in the original protocol - has mostly failed. On the one hand, people regained trust in the central banks (whether this trust is justified, can of cours be debated for hours), which makes the Bitcoin product now less attractive to the masses. On the other hand, the original protocol had scalability issues.

Bitcoin promoters will argue that the scalability issues are now solved, altcoin promoters will argue that their altcoin offers properties that people loved to project into Bitcoin (anonymity). For most people, with the regained trust in national currencies, the problem that Bitcoin attempts/attempted to solve is - in opposite to the situation 2008/2009 - simply not a burning issue anymore.

My opinion is: Bitcoin was an idea that seemed very attractive at the time when it came out, but history turned out differently (for good or bad).

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#204

Post by spunker540 »

wpietri wrote: post #132
endlessvoid94 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I pointed to the solution instead of the problem. I'm still an engineer at heart, it seems! What should I have said instead? Centralization of data? Unreliability of single-points-of-failure?

No, those aren't real problems either. Problems are experienced by humans. Humans willing to pay money for solutions. Actual problems are things like "I want to buy this candy bar," or "I want to fly to New York in August and I need to pay for the ticket." Those are problems Bitcoin, as "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash" [1], was intended to solve. It didn't. As far as I can tell, the main problems bl…

How about “I want to buy a house without needing a bank as the middle man” or “I want to transact online without needing a credit card company intermediary taking fees” or “I want to cheaply send money to my family across the globe” or “I want to diversify with an asset that is truly global and not easily printable by some central government” or “my country’s currency is inflating like crazy and there arent enough usd accessible to safely convert”?

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#205

Post by mgummelt »

root_axis wrote: post #200
mgummelt wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The potential use cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication) and available on day one. "Instant remote communication" is abstract. There was no consensus on the specific applications of the internet in the 70s. The same holds for blockchain. We know the applications are "trusted computing". We don't know what the specific apps will be.

> "Instant remote communication" is a abstract. 100% wrong. "Instant remote communication" is a clear and concrete use-case. > We know the applications are "trusted computing" The blockchain does not facilitate "trusted computing" in the abstract; it can produce some concrete software implementations that incorporate some aspects of "trusted computing" (i.e. cryptocurrencies) but the blockchain has not been demonstra…

It's not concrete when there are many specific use cases that fall under that umbrella. Telephony is one, for instance, and it predates the internet.

And do you not consider smart contracts to be non-currency trusted computing applications of the blockchain?

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#206

Post by Karrot_Kream »

dd36 wrote: post #188
tomc1985 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By reducing the coordination of truth between so many parties to an offline, distributed data-structure, in a way that assures integrity mathematically. As alternative to the constellation of approaches (email, IT integrations, filing cabinets full of records, etc) currently in use. With a global peer-distributed database you can change the risks with your truth provider to risks that the data doesn't update. Dependi…

But you still have to trust the people doing the inspecting and certifying - or whatever. I'd be less worried about them altering information than them altering or substituting actual product.

That will always be the case, but given the ease of tracking all the transactions in the chain, you can find the point at which the product deviates. Of course, if every step on that chain has colluded, and produced false attestations, then there's no defense against that. But then, if all parties are coordinating then they've created their own supply chain independent of the one being tracked.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#207

Post by s73v3r_ »

Geee wrote: post #193
s73v3r_ wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"With decentralized trust we could create a decentralized uber, where drivers get 99% of the money and 1% going to developers and providers of decentralized insurance." Why do we want decentralized Uber? Do we not want some basic vetting of the people who are driving us around? I imagine decentralized Uber isn't going to be too quick to remove drivers who sexually harass riders, if it does so at all.

It's not about if we want it. If it's more efficient, it's bound to replace the decentralized one.

Why would decentralized Uber be more efficient?

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#208

Post by madeofpalk »

spunker540 wrote: post #204
wpietri wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, those aren't real problems either. Problems are experienced by humans. Humans willing to pay money for solutions. Actual problems are things like "I want to buy this candy bar," or "I want to fly to New York in August and I need to pay for the ticket." Those are problems Bitcoin, as "a purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash" [1], was intended to solve. It didn't. As far as I can tell, the main problems bl…

How about “I want to buy a house without needing a bank as the middle man” or “I want to transact online without needing a credit card company intermediary taking fees” or “I want to cheaply send money to my family across the globe” or “I want to diversify with an asset that is truly global and not easily printable by some central government” or “my country’s currency is inflating like crazy and there arent enough us…

You have the cash to buy a house without a bank? Go ahead. You don't need blockchain for that.

Online transactions without fees? Bitcoin still has fees.

I send money overseas cheaply, easily and instantly all the time. Without Blockchain.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#209

Post by slg »

workinthehead wrote: post #192
slg wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not a philosophy student, but I think you have that backwards. My last comment was fundamentally a utilitarian one as it is about maximizing efficiency and minimizing waste. You don't see utilitarians walking around talking about "a sufficient level of good for a sufficiently large group of people".

That's incorrect. In your original comment you referred to "a positive net result", which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition. Perhaps you are confusing utility with efficiency?

>which the utilitarian will always prefer by definition

That is the heart of our confusion here. You are comparing it to a neutral state. Yes, a utilitarian would prefer any positive outcome to that. However, I was implying that there was another path that would have resulted in an even more positive result but through inefficiency we were left with a lesser but still positive result. That waste of resources like time and money is equivalent to a waste of utility that a utilitarian would obviously oppose.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#210

Post by madeofpalk »

wolfgke wrote: post #203
madeofpalk wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Solve an actual, real life problem. All I see are Long Island Ice Tea Blockchain Corp. and Walmat saying that they're using blockchain to help their supply chain (whatever that means). The reality is is that Blockchain is no longer new. Compare it to iPhone - they both roughly came out at the same time, yet we're still having the same conversations - "What problem does Blockchain solve" - while the iPhone found its p…

> The reality is is that Blockchain is no longer new. Compare it to iPhone - they both roughly came out at the same time, yet we're still having the same conversations - "What problem does Blockchain solve" - while the iPhone found its place in the market. I still do not understand what kind of problem the iPhone solves (seriously!), while I can imagine quite well what kind of problem Bitcoin attempted to solve when…

While I'm not certain I could state what problem iPhone (or smartphones in general) solves, it's definitely proven market fit. Bitcoin has not.
Post reply on HN