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

191–200 of 312 posts

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#191

Post by mgummelt »

dperfect wrote: post #71

Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so it really just steps around the issue of trust in a distributed ledger. This is a critical misunderstanding that a lot of people are still preaching and perpetuating. You can't really build systems that rely on trust on top of a blockchain, and those who have…

> Trust isn't really a feature of blockchains, nor is it a byproduct (or "software primitive") of blockchains. Bitcoin was designed to avoid a need for trust, so it really just steps around the issue of trust in a distributed ledger.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. BTC wasn't designed to avoid the need for trust. It was designed to incentivize the network to act in a way such that you can trust it. That's how it provides trust.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#192

Post by workinthehead »

slg wrote: post #149
workinthehead wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is if you're a utilitarian.

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?

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#193

Post by Geee »

s73v3r_ wrote: post #172
unabridged wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Decentralized trust is a way to "open source" a customer/merchant database. If centralized trust is required the company controlling it can charge people to use it, for example think of listing fees as ebay charging people for access to their seller ratings. Or uber charging people to access its driver ratings. With decentralized trust we could create a decentralized uber, where drivers get 99% of the money and 1% go…

"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.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#194

Post by abritinthebay »

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 sad thing about the Walmart usecase is all they really mean is hashing. Just hashing.

That’s it.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#196

Post by mgummelt »

pdpi wrote: post #15

If you’re an insider, there’s a somewhat big technical mistake in there that kind of undermines their credibility. > Blockchain computers are new types of computers where the unique capability is trust between users, developers, and the platform itself. Trusting somebody implies they’re in a position to hurt you, which makes it undesirable in a secure system. Unfortunately, trustless systems tend to be cumbersome and…

What are you saying the mistake is?

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#197

Post by Max_aaa »

narrator wrote: post #127
TrevorAustin wrote: post #70

Speaking as a longtime skeptic, A16Z has actually produced the single clearest answer I've seen to that question: blockchains may be good for bootstrapping new network effects by giving early participants in a network (in a Metcalfe's Law sense of network) an incentive to participate. Pure utility tokens can be like call options on the eventual value of the network if it gets off the ground. It's a novel way of solvi…

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 requirement in this particular chain of custody.

This is also why the block-chain only really works in Digital Only assets, as you link the asset it self in the block-chain itself.

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#198

Post by bawana »

The problem w money is that it represents the fruit of human labor but also allows speculation. We have arrived at a point where accumulated wealth through speculation that human labor ( and therefore self worth ) are devalued. That money from financial investments (speculation) can be ploughed back into speculation removes the human effort that generated the money in the first place. To restore human value we need a simple restriction. Capital gains should only be spendable on real stuff - things, services, etc. whereas money from human work should be unrestricted. The block chain is a perfect tool to keep track of monetary transactions and would allow automatic enforcement of this regulation

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#199

Post by siavosh »

endlessvoid94 wrote: post #29

The skepticism of blockchain technology is borne out of a lack of specific problems it solves. Which happens to also be the bedrock of the conventional startup wisdom -- value derived from solving a problem or exploiting an opportunity. So much of the blockchain hype is focused purely on the technology and the valuation of the tokens / coins. Not the problem it solves. It's distributed trust. That's the problem it so…

I’ve been trying to answer this question for myself for a few months now. Reading the different VC, academic, and tech’s writings, I’ve come up with a longer list than I thought—some more compelling than others.

One of them that I find really interesting is the ability of people to create these autonomous organizations. An entity separate from governments or existing forms of business with programmable incentives that are highly durable. They can exist as long as there’s one node still running somewhere in the world. As for its applications besides being potential investment vehicles, I’ve been curious if they provide the missing implementation piece for grander visions of old alternative economic theories of coordination and ownership like worker coops or some topics in the works of Posner & Weyl (Radical Markets).

Re: Introducing A16Z Crypto

#200

Post by root_axis »

mgummelt wrote: post #183
root_axis wrote: post #48

More breathless fawning rhetoric and nebulous jargon, but I guess the target audience is blockchain enthusiasts so that makes sense. At the end of the day it's their money, so what I do I care? I find it frustrating when I hear comparisons of the blockchain to internet and cellphone communication platforms. The potential use cases for the internet and cellphones were immediately obvious (instant remote communication)…

> 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 demonstrated to be useful in any other "trusted computing" scenario.

Post reply on HN