Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency • Hacker News Board

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#121

Post by olalonde » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:49 PM UTC

Maro wrote: post #30

What's the value of the in-app currency being a cryptocurrency (putting aside hype/pr), vs calling it a virtual currency, a Mysql database with a API on top? Dropping to a technical level, if the miners are all run by Telegram, then I think it's just a pointless overhead over Mysql. On the other hand, if anybody can run miners, I don't comprehend what value that adds, what it means.

You answered your own question. It's a borderline scam to make money. Otherwise, they would just use an existing coin (e.g. Bitcoin).

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#122

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:51 PM UTC

rando444 wrote: post #73

lakechfoma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this same thing happening at some corporations now trying to create blockchain as a service. If one corporation, or just a few, are the only ones participating in the chain then why not just use traditional DBs?..

The main reason is because you can't edit a blockchain. With a database there's always ways around editing the data if you own the entire system. With a blockchain it's not possible to edit the data without replacing the entire chain.

If a database snapshot and a checksum are published out to a CDN on a regular interval, you can certainly run UPDATE on a row and publish a new snapshot, but those tracking the integrity of the data will detect the change.

If you are in control of write access to the blockchain, you can roll back to whatever block suits you better, and just fork it. Others might protest, but those fools have no write access, so they're stuck with your fork for the time being.

Blockchain is just a protocol for consensus-based DB replication, you don't somehow magically end up with a superior DB because of that.

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#123

Post by rlpb » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 8:59 PM UTC

rando444 wrote: post #73

lakechfoma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this same thing happening at some corporations now trying to create blockchain as a service. If one corporation, or just a few, are the only ones participating in the chain then why not just use traditional DBs?..

The main reason is because you can't edit a blockchain. With a database there's always ways around editing the data if you own the entire system. With a blockchain it's not possible to edit the data without replacing the entire chain.

They could just publish a git repository. It'd be the same: it's not possible to edit the data without replacing the entire chain [of commits].

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#124

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:00 PM UTC

zeroxfe wrote: post #97

lakechfoma wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see this same thing happening at some corporations now trying to create blockchain as a service. If one corporation, or just a few, are the only ones participating in the chain then why not just use traditional DBs?..

It's primarily because large corporations within an industry don't trust each other (and IMO, shouldn't.) This is especially so when the corporations cross national boundaries.

That's quite a blanket statement. There's a bunch of cases where companies trust each other enough to share the data for the benefit of the industry - credit reports being one example. Other industries have bad customer lists, etc.

So let's say you do set up a meeting with Experian, TransUnion and EquiFax and now need to prepare a slide deck to convince them to migrate their existing tech (let's say a master MySQL with a bunch of slaves, shared write access for trusted entities) to blockchain.

What's your selling point? Lower costs when deployed at the datacenter? Decreased hardware costs? Greatly increased TPS? Faster lookups? Easier to build applications on top compared to the existing stack?

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#125

Post by 0wing » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:09 PM UTC

googlryas wrote: post #109

meri_dian wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is PoS safe from this?

With PoW, assuming you can use the same hardware to mine different coins, then you just point your BTC mining rig onto MinorCoin, you get 51% of the hashing power and then you can double spend and let's say crash the value of the coin. Once that is done, you can move your mining rigs onto the next MinorCoin, or you can put them back to mining BTC without you having lost any value except for the opportunity cost when…

BTC PoW hashing power is supplied by ASICs so it's impossible for BTC miners to do anything with their hardware other than mine BTC/BCash.

PoS mining is just rewarding the rich simply for being rich. What could be wrong with that?

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#126

Post by googlryas » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:19 PM UTC

0wing wrote: post #125

googlryas wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With PoW, assuming you can use the same hardware to mine different coins, then you just point your BTC mining rig onto MinorCoin, you get 51% of the hashing power and then you can double spend and let's say crash the value of the coin. Once that is done, you can move your mining rigs onto the next MinorCoin, or you can put them back to mining BTC without you having lost any value except for the opportunity cost when…

BTC PoW hashing power is supplied by ASICs so it's impossible for BTC miners to do anything with their hardware other than mine BTC/BCash. PoS mining is just rewarding the rich simply for being rich. What could be wrong with that?

BTC ASICs could be re-purposed for any coin that uses the same hashing algorithm of BTC.

PoS doesn't reward the rich for being rich any more than a savings account rewards the rich for being rich by letting them make more money off of a given interest rate.

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#127

Post by corey_moncure » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:30 PM UTC

romanovcode wrote: post #20

yalogin wrote: post #9

What is preventing every app/service to launch their own crypto currency? It looks like in these times it is in their own interest to launch their own crypto currency than adopting an existing one as they stand to make billions. In that scenario do we say bitcoin and their ilk is failing or succeeding?

> What is preventing every app/service to launch their own crypto currency? Yeah, they will. Cryptocurrency in 2018 is the machine learning of 2017. Startups will get asked "what is your blockchain strategy" instead of "what is your machine learning strategy".

My strategy is making money

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#128

Post by prostoalex » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:32 PM UTC

bflesch wrote: post #2

I don't understand: Wouldn't Apple just remove their app from the app once they touch payments? Someone will be bitten by compliance, and if Telegram is able to circumvent that then the bucket stops with Apple. This is what has stopped me from doing payment in my apps until now - you never know when some apple or google employee decides to smash you in the face with the ban hammer.

Facebook Messenger supported peer-to-peer debit-card-backed payments for quite a bit now https://www.facebook.com/help/messenger-app/750020781733477/...

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#129

Post by fernandopj » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

prostoalex wrote: post #124

zeroxfe wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's primarily because large corporations within an industry don't trust each other (and IMO, shouldn't.) This is especially so when the corporations cross national boundaries.

That's quite a blanket statement. There's a bunch of cases where companies trust each other enough to share the data for the benefit of the industry - credit reports being one example. Other industries have bad customer lists, etc. So let's say you do set up a meeting with Experian, TransUnion and EquiFax and now need to prepare a slide deck to convince them to migrate their existing tech (let's say a master MySQL wi…

IMHO that's not how a disruption on that level would ever play out. If a future blockchain replace those companies/services, it will be (again, IMO) because a team decided to create a blockchain who would provide those services, and instead of trying to please the incumbents, it would be the lower tier providers who would see value on it (users, faster time to market, etc), and little by little it would compound into market disruption, to a point where those 3 incumbents would either join the train or launch a new stack. It's a scenario akin to streaming: it is a model so disruptive from what was standard, that every first mover got in trouble with hostile incumbents (Pandora comes to mind). It takes an Apple-sized company to launch an iTunes with blessings and partnerships of that level. Look how long it is taking Ripple (XRP) to effectively launch in a similar space.

Re: Telegram plans multi-billion dollar ICO for chat cryptocurrency

#130

Post by jakebasile » Mon, Jan 08, 2018, 9:41 PM UTC

vazamb wrote: post #10

I am a happy user of Telegram but I don't think re-inventing ethereum with a small team of developers is a great idea. But then again, using existing tech gives you fewer opportunities for cash grabs...

Me too. Telegram is my main and preferred messaging service. I am worried this is going to ruin the service by changing focus. I guess there's still Wire.