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

The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

cdixon.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 209 posts

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#171

Post by pavlov »

mopsi wrote: post #149
pavlov wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an example of what I meant by speculating on a growth story. 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. 2019 cryptocurrency lets you pay for something, sort of, not really, but will be very clean one day — never mind that millions are already paying for things and sending money because “it’s a dumpster fire”.

> 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. You could. There were phones and snail mail after all, weren't there? They were slow an expensive just like wire transfers between US and EU bank accounts are: 2-3 workdays and a $35-45 fee to move around a few bytes in existing financial messaging systems. Pure madness.

Wire transfers between US and EU take a few hours to clear and cost $25. I send them all the time.

In Europe, transfers between all banks are becoming instantaneous starting Jan 2020: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-insta...

The cost is pennies.

No need for a crypto-anything solution.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#172

Post by [deleted] »

monadgonad wrote: post #170
vermilingua wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes because contacts are an absolute pleasure in comparison to glasses.

You're thinking very small-picture here. Contacts can be improved upon somewhat if we have the technology to make them into full AR screens.

[deleted]

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#173

Post by simonh »

QuinnWilton wrote: post #163
simonh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there’s a very good chance the smartphone will be the dominant form factor essentially forever. Anything smaller won’t be good for presenting visual information, and when you don’t need it, it isn’t stuck to your face. Alternatively taking a long view, how many times do you think the dominant form factor of personal computers (in the general sense, including smart phones) will change? Another 3 times, another…

> You could use glasses, but not everyone wants to wear them. What about contact lenses?

I don't see how that could physically work. To present a high fidelity bright, clear display has irreducible base power requirements, and I don't see any way to provision that amount of energy in the form factor. Signal reception would also be a problem, and then there's the issue of dealing with thermal losses. Thermodynamics is not our friend, especially for powered devices in physical contact with our eyeballs.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#174

Post by tialaramex »

aazaa wrote: post #33

I think most participants in the Internet circa 1996 and personal computers in the early 1980s would understand this idea. The Internet was being widely written off as a toy that many couldn't ever imagine having practical applications. Case in point, this widely-cited piece from 1998: > The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connec…

I was certainly a "participant in the Internet circa 1996" (and before) and besides the inevitable quote from Krugman pretending not to understand what is happening here [Network effects don't care that "most people have nothing to say to each other" and we should laugh at a supposed "economist" who didn't understand that in 1998] I don't see a connection to the Internet as a "toy".

I guess there are two and a half possible mistakes here, which I'll address separately.

1. The Network is a toy. No. At least as far back as the Treaty of Bern (in 1874) the importance of the global Network is so obvious that national governments give up a little sovereignty to have it work better. Communication makes the difference almost everywhere almost all the time. Bern of course is about written letters, but the Telephone follows the exact same course, and so if you accept the Internet as a natural successor all the same things apply.

2. Maybe the Internet is not the Network? This argument looks completely reasonable in 1986 when IP networks are mostly an American phenomenon and there is a lot of X.25 out in the rest of the world. Maybe the Network will be X.25. By 1996 that's a distant memory, everything is IP. It's a done deal, the Internet is the Network.

2.5. Mistaking the Web for the Internet. The Web initially looks like a toy. HTTP/0.9 era Web has lots of toy-like qualities. Academics have been designing powerful hypermedia technology for many years by 1990, surely this half-arsed tech demo from a CERN guy who isn't even a Computer Scientist is a flash in the pan? You can make a better argument that the Web is still a toy in 1996 than the Internet, I don't think it's a good argument but it can be made -- however the Web is just an application. A competitor hypermedia solution that crushes Tim's Web but uses IP is still the Internet.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#175

Post by noxer »

fwip wrote: post #116
noxer wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In short credit cards do not move value at all. You authorize payment instructions. Which in turn leads to balances being adjusted. It's basically a debt transaction instead of a value transaction. It has several advantages like that banks can adjust balances for a specific time with many parties and then calculate the effective difference (a lot will cancel each other out) and only settle the real differences. There…

Why do I care whether it's a "debt transaction" or a "value transaction?"

If you get that transaction you probably prefer the value rather than the debt. Value is free to move, debt is an agreement between 2 parties. If you get paid with debt it means you get nothing but someone owes you something now. This someone is usually your bank. You can cash out that debt at any time and that gives the feeling that there is value stored at the bank. But that's not really the case everyone knows that it would not work if a lot people would want their debt payed back.

Instead of cashing the debt out you can just send that debt to someone else. This is called transaction but as you already know there is nothing to move. It just adjust balances of debt. You tell the bank that a part of what they owe you should now be owed by someone else. If its someone is using the same bank then this is super simple. If he is form another bank the 2 Banks must work together to update the balances over 2 systems. If the 2 Banks do not have any relationship with each-other then they need to find corresponding banks and create a chain of trusted relationships to move that debt around. This is why Tx from account to account of the same banks is super simple fast and cheap/free but the further you go the longer it takes and the more Banks in between want some kind of fee for the service. It comes to the point where you simply can't make a transaction anymore because either the fees are way to high or there just isn't a bank to bank to bank chain that could move the debt. Or of course there are billions of people who do not have a bank. There are payment companies who fill in that gap where you can input a bank transaction (debt) and they deliver cash etc. It's sill expensive and slow in most cases and it absolutely does not work with small value(debt) Tx. There is no way to send 1USD from USA to Mexico for an acceptable fee and in an acceptable time.

If you could send value instead you could avoid literally all these problems. Value is value everywhere it doesn't matter where you send it from and where you send it to. There is no need for cooperating banks. It's like if you could pay cash but globally (without the different currencies of course because value is currency independent). Imagine if value would be represented by gold. I buy gold worth 1 USD and send it anywhere in the world and the person who gets it sells it for his local currency. Now replace the gold with crypto because gold can not be send over the internet but cryptos can. Everywhere, very fast/cheap (not with BTC) and without any chain of trusted entities in between the endpoints.

It's also final unlike debt Tx which can be reversed by the banks and payment provider in between. Which is bad for the endpoints but also for the corresponding bank chains since they all have to take the risk of reversed Tx which leads to higher fees.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#176

Post by noxer »

pavlov wrote: post #171
mopsi wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. You could. There were phones and snail mail after all, weren't there? They were slow an expensive just like wire transfers between US and EU bank accounts are: 2-3 workdays and a $35-45 fee to move around a few bytes in existing financial messaging systems. Pure madness.

Wire transfers between US and EU take a few hours to clear and cost $25. I send them all the time. In Europe, transfers between all banks are becoming instantaneous starting Jan 2020: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-insta... The cost is pennies. No need for a crypto-anything solution.

US EU is a corridor with huge volume the legacy systems are therefore very very optimized for this. Inside EU Tx are basically inside the same system which is centralized and updating balances is super simple cheap and fast. Try to send some USD to Mexico or something instead.

Also a Tx taking hours and costing 25 bucks is absolutely not going to allow the Internet of Value to show it's possibilities. It may be acceptable to buy something and let it be ship to you. but what about services? instant services how could they be paid with such a system.

Watch the youtube video linked above if you want to get an idea of the IoV. It's on a completely different scale. Value streaming a fraction of a cent at a time. Instant and basically free.

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#177

Post by growlist »

This made me think of disparaging comments from ESA about SpaceX:

'Asked about how the Ariane 5 compares to lower-cost alternatives on the market today, such as SpaceX's Falcon 9 rocket, Stefano Bianchi, Head of ESA Launchers Development Department, responded with a question of his own. “Are you buying a Mercedes because it is cheap?”

Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of the world’s least expensive car. As he put it, “We don’t sell a Tata.”'

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#179

Post by itronitron »

cookingrobot wrote: post #43
aazaa wrote: post #33

I think most participants in the Internet circa 1996 and personal computers in the early 1980s would understand this idea. The Internet was being widely written off as a toy that many couldn't ever imagine having practical applications. Case in point, this widely-cited piece from 1998: > The growth of the Internet will slow drastically, as the flaw in "Metcalfe's law"--which states that the number of potential connec…

By this test, is Lego the next big thing?

if by Lego you mean Minecraft, then yes

Re: The next big thing will start out looking like a toy (2010)

#180

Post by noxer »

perl4ever wrote: post #143
seibelj wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Legacy payments network is a dumpster fire. It works but just barely. Crypto is much cleaner and will take it over eventually, give it time.

Cryptocurrency seems like the inverse of the internet revolution to me. Internetworking realized the vast potential of all the computers in the world. They could do so much more if talking to each other. Crypto via "proof of work" takes all the unused computing capacity everywhere and creates an incentive to waste it. What it seems like to me is a hybrid virus that uses both human minds and machines to spread and suc…

BTC is 10 years old. Tech has come along way since then. Proof of work clearly isn't the revolution. There is no need to waist energy to make blockchains/DLT work. Just like light doesn't have to be produced by turning 95% of the energy into heat. Inventions never start with the final product. But there will always be people who prefer the first product.
Post reply on HN