231–240 of 273 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Crypto isn't required for this. It doesn't even help.
Smart contracts is what makes it possible.
Smart contracts might be one way to implement it, but it isn't required and doesn't appear to be an improvement on any dimension that people outside crypto care about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sorry, I guess my word timing sarcasm was missed. You kind of have to buy the house and get the mortgage at the same time. "going to buy" was said multiple times, which implies that the house wasn't purchased yet.
Well this is why having humans in the loop is an advantage, so you get an Agreement in Principle to move the process forward. Also, we're back to the fundamental problem which is that you can't use a house as collateral on the blockchain but you can in the real world. There are also things like leveraged buyouts of companies which operate on a similar principle. The capital for the buyout is fronted by a bank loan se…
Is it really a problem?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are neither smart, nor contracts. They are pieces of code written in an esoteric language running in world's most inefficient and expensive VMs where every single operation is billed to the user.
> They are neither smart Well certainly not the way I write them. Anyway, this is like arguing a lazy susan is neither lazy, nor involves anyone named Susan. If you know what "smart contracts" as a phrase refers to, I don't understand why you keep bringing this up on HN. We're intelligent enough here to discern that "smart contracts" isn't referring to sentient documents
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't see why this is so far fetched at this point Because you've fetched it far with "I can imagine someone gladly accepting tokens for a house"
You mean like this? https://www.cnbc.com/2022/05/02/greenwich-mansion-for-sale-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> don't see why this is so far fetched at this point Because you've fetched it far with "I can imagine someone gladly accepting tokens for a house"
I don't know how how many deals went through but there were ads in my country for buying houses with bitcoin [1] [1] https://www.mercadolibre.com.ar/inmuebles/blog/propiedades-e...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had not heard of Akash before. So I pay real dollars to setup and run a K8S cluster and people pay me in funny money to host their app on it? Looking at the calculator[0] the price fluctuates quite a bit. The 30 day average is 1 AKT/$0.35 while the current price is $0.215. [0]: https://akash.praetorapp.com/calculator
Correct on both counts. The profit model just isn't sadly there yet. But it also wasn't there for Bitcoin in 2009 or ETH later on and people still bought hardware to mine.
One of the most compelling services in the history of computing is the opposite - a centrally controlled service offering computing resources in return for standard, government issued currency. Throughout all computing, centrally controlled shared resources has been a compelling value prop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want to read my article, you can pay me 0.001 Nano (sub-second, 0 fee transaction), or you can pay me $0.001. Oh no wait, you can't pay me $0.001!
But to do that I have to buy nano, and then you need to cash out nano to do anything useful with it. Also frankly, if I'm paying as little as 0.001 Nano, then probably I don't actually care about your article and reading it is pure procrastination on my part, so I'm likely better off not doing so. Thanks for putting up your paywall :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> you probably haven't looked at how Nano works I have looked at the past n similar products and it was always the same story. At some point, you don't need to look at the implementation details anymore, you can take this from first principles: somebody somewhere is running a ledger. You have to pay this someone one way or another, unless they're just volunteering. > a few releases back they solved this issue How are…
Lots of Open Source projects rely on volunteering one way or another. I think projects where everything is publicly available, have the least risk to disappear. If you want it, you can just run it. There is of course always a cost for a transaction one way or another, but it still stands that you pay 0 for the transaction itself.
How many of them without any corporate backing have the same requirements as a payment processor?
> There is of course always a cost for a transaction one way or another, but it still stands that you pay 0 for the transaction itself.
Again that's not the full picture, just take the Uber example. If they had made rides free thanks to VC money, would you have said that they solved the taxi problem and made them free so it's a much better alternative?
The problem with this kind of accounting is that you can't tell whether it's just running at a loss or whether the technology is actually better than the rest. Visa and others could make transactions free if they didn't care about losses.
As a user, I'm also not interested in, say, getting a new credit card transacting in $crypto that will either not work anymore in a while once they've run out of money or start billing me fees when it's clear it's become unsustainable for them to have free transactions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Right now, you can take out a loan without involving a bank from one of the many crypto lending protocols. You put up some collateral and can take out a loan for extremely cheap, because there isn't a bank in the middle to take a cut. "Loan" is a very misleading description of what this is. This is margin trading. A loan is when you post a non-liquid asset in the real world -- like a house -- as collateral. Margin…
> who spout incoherent word salad I affectionally call it crypto-babble. > critics describe what it does better than its advocates Seems to be true of pretty much all crypto. Most of the advocates have a very poor understanding of how it works, what the benefits/tradeoffs are and worst of all a complete ignorance of the systems they are seeking to "replace". As a result we see all the crypto stuff simply repeat mista…
He misses the two main use cases, and the two things that crypto are used for that dwarfs everything else. A) it's a great speculative asset. Huge volatility in value means fortunes can be made (and lost) in days not lifetimes. All those crypto ads on the radio talk about "investing" in Bitcoin - marketing it as an asset, not about using it as currency. It appears to be a zero sum game. I'll make no judgement about i…
Yep, this. "useful" and "no use case" are not the same thing. Clearly anyone who isn't completely blind can see that you can use crypto for some things. It's pretty easy to demolish the strawman that is 'there is nothing to can use that for'. ...but given that technically it's like an unregulated, very slow, very expensive payment system, it's far harder to swallow the idea that it has compelling use cases, by which…
Which is basically impossible. It's a distributed ledger and the IRS has chain analysis software.
> - you're doing something traditional payment providers don't allow
So no one has ever complained about Paypal? Seems to be a recurring theme on HN.
> - you're speculating
Which is exactly about Y Combinator is about?
I personally think Uber and Facebook are scams. Uber ignored regulation and started its business without getting permission. Facebook tries to convince young people to spend more of their time doing worthless things. And yet a lot of people here are being paid big bucks by these companies and loving it!
The modern internet is just a cess pool. Crypto skeptics want us to believe that everything else on the internet that came before it has a purpose and is justified. But really the modern internet is making society worse.