231–240 of 433 posts
You can see the state (volume, # daily users) of some of these promised "dapps" here: https://dappradar.com . It is indeed a barren wasteland. And when a new popular ICO comes along, the Ethereum network struggles and fees skyrocket. It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning: you could at least send messages and files across the netw…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> End financial services users repeatedly choose convenience and risk guarantees over self-management. This isn't something which can be papered over with a saucy UI, particularly when the tangible benefit is difficult to describe. ("Decentralization" isn't a benefit, it's an attribute.) Totally agree. In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But…
> In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo . Cryptocurrencies make sense for people who wish, for philosophically reasons, to control their own mone…
1) cheaper financial services 2) broader financial services 3) real-time financial services 4) access to financial services regardless of location (or nation) 5) decentralized applications fully integrated with financial services
The average Joe doesn't need to control their own private keys in order to gain these benefits.
But think of it this way. What would be more difficult, for an organization or company, today?
A) start your own bank B) start your own key management service
A) make an application that accepts payments as low as $0.01 B) make an application that accepts payments as low as .001 ETH
A) create a new protocol layer on top of the banking system B) create a new protocol layer on top of Ethereum
---
Today, we rely on perhaps at most a few dozen companies (PayPal, Stripe, VISA, MC, etc) to build interfaces with our banking system.
There is no "app store" for banking system financial services. It's hard, hard work to build anything on top of that archaic system.
Blockchain makes currency an internet-native construct. Which has profound implications that we are just beginning to see the very earliest examples of.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Eventually someone will realize that the smarter move is to create sustainable value over time. Most ICO's - if not all of them - are powered by the greater fool theory, sustainable value isn't really on the table. I see value in the blockchain and some in BTC (but not as much as others apparently do), but the whole ICO concept seems to be just a way to transfer wealth from greedy suckers to even greedier suckers.
One promising example is SpankChain. It's a cryptocurrency specifically designed for the porn market. Traditionally, it's hard to make money in porn due to fraud and chargebacks. Most payment processors also won't touch you. But crypto has no chargebacks, so it's a natural fit. One could argue that if you have to dip down to the level of porn just to find some value, ICOs are worth dismissing. But I would say that it…
Haha what do you know. Another day, another anti-crypto article on the top of Hacker News. In this case, I agree with the overall sentiment. I don’t think these companies are actually “dying” though, but rather they were probably created as get rich quick schemes, so they took the millions of dollars they raised and then sailed off to some island somewhere. From the report > We use intensity of tweets from the crypto…
It should also be pointed out that 50% of small businesses fail within 5 years, and between 70-96% fail within 10. You'd think people so incompetent at identifying success would know when to STFU by now. "Hey, our industry is the go to source for how to run a business. Businesses have a 96% failure rate. Please continue to listen to us. Why are you laughing?"
https://www.fool.com/careers/2017/05/03/what-percentage-of-b... https://www.inc.com/bill-carmody/why-96-of-businesses-fail-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The frequency of each of coins being stolen from wallets, being lost by exchanges or pilfered by ICO frauds is far, far higher than anything happening at proper banks. What does that have to do with what we're talking about?
The statement you are defending was "Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value." Compared to wire transfers, one is required to trust the intermediary in that case. I think at that point it becomes fair to ask: what is the likelihood that I am going to lose money unexpectedly to my credit union, or my recipient to her bank? And then by comparison, what is the likelihood…
You're totally right. But let me flip the question around a little bit. What would our financial system look like if we didn't have to place so much trust in our intermediaries?
It's not that banks aren't trustworthy. They are. They're extremely good stewards of the public trust, for the most part. But the fact that we place so much trust in them has systemic effects that are stifling to innovation. And I think that's what blockchains may allow us to overcome.
Like it or not blockhains are here to stay. Nobody is going to run behind VCs looking for elite money in 20 years from now. Isnt it obvious? Blockhains are going to redistribute the wealth from the wealthy elite few to the masses. More and more wealth is being generated from nowhere. Just because there are some spammy ICOs now doesn't mean it's the end of the blockhain and ICO. This is going to be another rare instan…
There is exactly nothing in blockchain that guarantees this will happen, or even makes it a likely outcome.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. Personally I trust those entities much more than some shlocky fly-by-night crypto exchange. To each his own, I guess.
> Personally I trust those entities much more than some shlocky fly-by-night crypto exchange. You aren't trusting an exchange when you send a transaction on the blockchain.
This is true, but exchanges have become the de facto on/off ramp for cryptos. If I want to acquire bitcoin without mining, how am I going to do it other than buying from a centralized entity?
Edit: As I post this I remembered that Paradex, a decentralized exchange for ERC20 tokens built on 0x, was recently acquired by Coinbase[1], the largest centralized crypto exchange, who in turn might soon be acquired by Facebook[2]
1. https://www.reuters.com/article/crypto-currencies-coinbase/c... 2. https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/ne...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What if we put "beginning" as in "before it was even called the Internet"? Indeed, ARPANET, which came online in 1969, saw fast growth in the United States in the 70s. Nodes came online to use it, not to make a quick buck. People use cryptocurrency too. For value transfer, and to a more limited extent, for dapps like Augur. You seem to be criticizing the delta between the lofty hopes for it and it's actual usage. T…
So, I said there are plans for solving the energy consumption issue. And your counter-argument is what, exactly? "I'll believe it when I see it"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would blockchains redistribute wealth away from the wealthy?
Securities deregulation. On the one hand, investors deserve protections. On the other, has the regulation gone too far by design, locking out the middle class it used to serve so well. Why do companies wait until most of the value is already realized before they IPO these days Crypto could be Uber for securities, ignoring the regulator and using technology to self regulate, or by operating out of countries with light…
Do you know anything at all about the year 1929?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> we went through this whole ICO bubble to realize that things are the way they are for a reason That may be overly reductive. My views on several rules changed as a result of observing the ICO phenomenon. For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! On the other hand, I think Regulation D could be massively simplified--from a required paperwork perspe…
> For example, I used to be skeptical about accredited investor requirments. Turns out, they're super necessary! This is one area I keep going back and forth on in my head. On one hand, obviously scams are bad, and the fact that people are throwing their life savings into some of these companies is awful. That said, I am not sure it should be up to Governments to decide who can and can’t invest in early stage startup…
Remember we live in a country where a cafe has to put the following disclaimer on Hot coffee paper cups "Caution: The contents of this cup could be hot!!"