Live data from Hacker News

Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

joecoin.com

21–30 of 103 posts

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#21
post #17

I don't necessarily agree with the conclusion at the end. Supposing that sidechains can be mined simultaneously with the bitcoin at no additional cost, and that there is a fixed bitcoin sidecoin conversion ( not market based) built in to the protocol, bitcoin would never completely lose its value, because it could be converted to sidecoin at the same rate it would be before. The market price would be fixed to some sm…

> Supposing that sidechains can be mined simultaneously with the bitcoin at no additional cost

Which is obviously not true. Extra storage and bandwidth at the very least.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#22
TL/DR: the Blockchain only wins if Bitcoin wins, because miners need an incentive to mine.

"...the Bitcoin Blockchain cannot win without Bitcoin as a currency winning too, but if the Bitcoin price languishes, the incentive mechanism backstopping the Blockchain will be weak and therefore unreliable, ..."

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#23
> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins.

In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence.

In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" because many of them already have a value and have "won" by some measures- Why do people keep trying to argue that dogecoin/litecoin/etc/etc don't have value, when people trade them for other currencies every day on open markets?

Near as I can tell, there will be (and already are) multiple "winners" in the cryptocurrency competition, filling different niches, just like there are multiple species on planet earth filling different niches.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#24
One of the central assumptions in the argument is that the miners need an economic incentive, a (spendable) reward for mining.

How then to explain why people contribute to Wikipedia? Or volunteer at the local seniors centre? Or donate compute time to SETI@home (and other BOINC projects)? Or add map data to OpenStreetMap? Or test open source software? Yes, some of those people get paid, but many do not.

The incentive need not be economic.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#25
post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

Just because something is bought for money doesn't mean it actually has value.

Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme or stocks that went to 0.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#26
post #24

One of the central assumptions in the argument is that the miners need an economic incentive, a (spendable) reward for mining. How then to explain why people contribute to Wikipedia? Or volunteer at the local seniors centre? Or donate compute time to SETI@home (and other BOINC projects)? Or add map data to OpenStreetMap? Or test open source software? Yes, some of those people get paid, but many do not. The incentive…

None of your examples are in regards to for-profit endeavors. Thus while you are correct that some foundations that are good causes can get people to contribute out of their own good will, this doesn't suggest that novel blockchains by for-profit companies will attract good will contributors.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#27
post #25
post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

Just because something is bought for money doesn't mean it actually has value. Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme or stocks that went to 0.

Actually if a wide market will pay for a good at a certain moment, it certainly has momentary value. The future of the good doesn't preclude that.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#28
post #23

> I am presently incapable of seeing how any token other than Bitcoin will be the one that wins. In some sense, Bitcoin has already "won" in that it currently has a non-zero value. Anyone who says "Bitcoin can't possibly exist or hold value" already is known to be wrong, simply by Bitcoin's existence. In the same way, I don't understand people like OP who say "No other cryptocurrency but Bitcoin can have value" becau…

> Why do people keep trying to argue that dogecoin/litecoin/etc/etc don't have value, when people trade them for other currencies every day on open markets?

B/c the majority of them care more about their investment than they do about cryptocurrencies as a technology and fear that competition of coins will hinder a successful (aka profitable) exit strategy.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#29
In order for bitcoin to "win" it needs to get massively more valuable. Valuable enough to move the equivalent of trillions of dollars per year and users need to be able to make million dollar purchases without drastically changing it's price. Otherwise it will never be truly useful as a currency and as interest is lost and prices go down parties concerned with verifying the blockchain will become sparse and the whole system collapses, magical blockchain and all.

Bitcoin has far from "won" in the sense of a currency and if another crypto-currency surpasses it's current popularity the faith in any crypto-currency being stable enough to move trillions of dollars each year is irreparably harmed.

People raising a few thousand dollars here and there in other crypto currencies is fun but it's not only paltry and not generally useful but can easily be attributed to entertainment more than economics. Once the novelty wears off, where will crypto currency stand. That's the most important question we need to ask ourselves. All these alt-coins aren't evidence of a thriving eco-system, they're evidence of the very reason why a cryptography based currency is inherently valueless.

The blockchain cannot last without bitcoin becoming massively more valuable. Many people already see bitcoin as being too valuable and alternatives too easy to create. What needs to be done to scale crypto-currency to the level of an actual currency? Government backing?

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#30
post #24

One of the central assumptions in the argument is that the miners need an economic incentive, a (spendable) reward for mining. How then to explain why people contribute to Wikipedia? Or volunteer at the local seniors centre? Or donate compute time to SETI@home (and other BOINC projects)? Or add map data to OpenStreetMap? Or test open source software? Yes, some of those people get paid, but many do not. The incentive…

Say what you like, there is an incentive in the opposite direction in the case of a blockchain used as a trust-store, which does not exist in the other cases you described. One could make a lot of money subverting a trusted blockchain, whereas Wikipedia vandals don't profit a cent.

This means that you will inevitably have massively funded efforts to subvert such a blockchain. One thing I know for sure is that simple financial self-interest is one of the most powerful things in the world. Every blockchain has that fact working against it. The reason they don't collapse is that on the other hand, they have that same force working for them as well. A volunteer blockchain like you propose wouldn't stand a whelk's chance in a supernova. Sorry.

Post reply on HN