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

The Future Is Decentralized

modernconsensus.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 62 posts

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#41

Post by throwaway33339 »

kasperni wrote: post #8

> Decentralizing the web through new technologies like blockchain and decentralized protocols can ensure that the web remains community-focused and user-oriented, Let's be realistic. A safe-place for anonymous money transactions is never ever going to be community-focused. It may start out community-focused but we all know it is going to end up like 4chan.

I find it very amusing to see miffed people crawling out of the woodwork to reply to your jest about 4chan because it's a constant reminder that a huge chunk of HN is being very civil and charitable on one tab and reading a bunch of racial and homophobic slurs without batting an eye on the tab next to it. Gives a whole new meaning to civility and charitability, and indicates pretty well to whom it is directed.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#42

Post by skitout »

zozbot234 wrote: post #28
roenxi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that strictly goes to what the article was talking about, but nevertheless: Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply. That is remarkably valuable information (of such bricks economies are built). And it is truly remarkable that there is nothing in the blockchain that a government can do about it. Ditto anyone else. I believe it is financial information and preference da…

> ... cheaply ... For some values of "cheaply", of course. Reliance on a mutually-trusted third party, where feasible, is a lot cheaper than any blockchain.

- often you need to rely on multiple mutually-trusted third party (eg transferring money from your bank account, to a a bank account in another continent) and that have a cost

- Blockchain sometime bring a higher level of automation, reducing cost

- And more importantly, there are many cases where the "mutually-trusted third party" becomes a "dominant power" in its area and extract rent from it. App stores come to mind, but that the case of most "platforms"... Decentralization + open source + token to incentivize the system seems to be able to have cheaper, better and more transparent stuff.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#43

Post by zby »

roenxi wrote: post #18
andrewmutz wrote: post #2

Can't anyone still share information using the normal internet? You don't need the blockchain in order to set up a website and start sharing information. Few choose to do this because it is more work than using a centralized system. Using Facebook or twitter is much easier to use. What does the blockchain really change? So far, it doesn't seem to be any easier than sharing information the traditional way.

I don't know if that strictly goes to what the article was talking about, but nevertheless: Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply. That is remarkably valuable information (of such bricks economies are built). And it is truly remarkable that there is nothing in the blockchain that a government can do about it. Ditto anyone else. I believe it is financial information and preference da…

"Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply." - well actually you can do that with electronic signatures, much cheaper than with blockchains. The problem that blockchain solves is a very specific timestamping of messages between many participants. For two participants just signing a date is enough - the problem is if A singes two checks to B and C and you want to know which one was first.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#44

Post by pegasus »

open-source-ux wrote: post #7

The future is not decentralised because it's far too complicated. Here's an alternative, more practical option to centralisation: let's call it the 'WordPress' model. Here's how it might work: Hosting companies have a standard installation API for server web apps. This lets developers create server web apps that can be installed on any hosting provider that supports that installation API. A simple one-click process.…

This model is already being built: check out platforms like the internet computer & holochain for example.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#45

Post by ay »

roenxi wrote: post #18
andrewmutz wrote: post #2

Can't anyone still share information using the normal internet? You don't need the blockchain in order to set up a website and start sharing information. Few choose to do this because it is more work than using a centralized system. Using Facebook or twitter is much easier to use. What does the blockchain really change? So far, it doesn't seem to be any easier than sharing information the traditional way.

I don't know if that strictly goes to what the article was talking about, but nevertheless: Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply. That is remarkably valuable information (of such bricks economies are built). And it is truly remarkable that there is nothing in the blockchain that a government can do about it. Ditto anyone else. I believe it is financial information and preference da…

1. Click != agreement. Cf: phishing.

2. https://xkcd.com/538/ - applies for any sufficiently large entities and certainly governments.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#46

Post by skitout »

chii wrote: post #21
roenxi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that strictly goes to what the article was talking about, but nevertheless: Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply. That is remarkably valuable information (of such bricks economies are built). And it is truly remarkable that there is nothing in the blockchain that a government can do about it. Ditto anyone else. I believe it is financial information and preference da…

> Blockchains can prove that two parties once agreed on something, cheaply. it's not as cheap as trusting a third party. The evidence for this is that block chain as a form of financial payment system is still way outstripped by commercial credit card providers. And it's not just existing/legacy momentum either, because if you look at china, the advent of digital payment systems on the mobile _could've_ been using th…

Blockchain (sometime) can replace third party by some open source code. For example on decentralized Exchange platform you directly exchange your assets ; no trust, no third party needed. And it is cheaper than third party based exchange.

Of course, blockchain does not make sense in all the cases. But third party does represent a cost, and can sometime represent a risk (eg becoming dominant thanks to network effect, then extracting rent), or slow innovation (are you are dependent of this third party).

Please keep in mind that blockchain is not only about cryptomoney.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#47

Post by dalbasal »

andrewmutz wrote: post #2

Can't anyone still share information using the normal internet? You don't need the blockchain in order to set up a website and start sharing information. Few choose to do this because it is more work than using a centralized system. Using Facebook or twitter is much easier to use. What does the blockchain really change? So far, it doesn't seem to be any easier than sharing information the traditional way.

I agree, but I think "more profitable" is the underlying reason, not "easy."

Facebook/twitter/Whatsapp/etc. could be a lot more distributed, open, etc. It wouldn't be harder. As you said, this is what the internet and www were designed to do. You don't need blockchain, but this is just another example of good decentralization tech that exists.

It wouldn't have been hard to make whatsapp open, and/or distributed. It wouldn't have been harder to make it interoperate with other clients, and it would have been more useful that way. It just wouldn't have been worth as much money. Centralization, monopolisation and such are the value, when you go to sell your app to Facebook.

Email is distributed because it was invented before centralizing and monopolizing became so valuable. It's easy because there are lots of easy to use clients available. It's open and decentralized because it reached decisive adoption before the dotcom boom.

"Easy" to the end user is, by and large, a byproduct.

I don't think it's ingenuous to point to a html file, apache and say "there's your decentralized solution."

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#49

Post by pegasus »

Santosh83 wrote: post #29

Isn't this fundamentally a political issue? Even unbreakable encryption and stuff like shortwave broadcasts can be outlawed by a government which will lead to a very few number of holdouts on the run from law and the rest of society is going to comply. True change can only happen if people passionate about this manage to convince the REST of the 95% to back them and adopt the ideals.

Once decentralization becomes more widespread, it can impact politics too. Look at "liquid democracy" initiatives in South America for example.

Re: The Future Is Decentralized

#50

Post by carterklein13 »

What I feel like many people miss in this argument is that there's still currently no reason for the vast majority of people to want or care about the future being decentralized. Not only does majority of the population think companies like Facebook aren't manipulating them (these people will claim they're manipulating the "other side"), but even the people that do realize that Facebook is manipulating them don't care. They find the ads useful, and enjoy the recommended videos. They'll watch The Social Dilemma and go right back to browsing Twitter.

There's still no good reason that anyone outside of a technical audience holding certain ethical beliefs would want something other than a decentralized system. Most individuals don't care about being their own bank, for example.

In my eyes, the only way the future becomes decentralized is through a massive change in the fabric that makes up much of the developed world.

Post reply on HN