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

Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

joecoin.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#31

Post by baddox »

codexon wrote: post #25
drcode wrote: 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.

You gave examples of assets that did not turn out to have positive value in the future. They absolutely had value at the time they were purchased.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#32

Post by drcode »

codexon wrote: post #25
drcode wrote: 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.

I disagree- The value of something is "what you can get someone to pay for it." That is the only concrete, objective, and rational way to determine value.

> Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme/stock that went to 0

Well, given that you're stipulating a value of zero then clearly you are unable to get someone to pay for it and it's value is zero, by definition.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#33

Post by klochner »

Interesting post in that this is the first time I've seen someone from the bitcoin speculator group challenge the thesis of those in the VC/startup group.

Both groups are clearly 'talking their book', but this reads like little more than cheerleading/threatening aimed at himself and fellow speculators. For example:

    If Cryptocurrency 2.0 ever replaces Bitcoin and all Bitcoins
    become worthless, confidence in the category of
    cryptocurrencies in general will be, I believe,
    irreparably damaged. If Cryptocurrency 2.0 just replaced
    Bitcoin, there's nothing stopping Cryptocurrency 3.0 from
    replacing Cryptocurrency 2.0 and sending the value of its
    tokens to zero. Ad infinitum.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#34

Post by [deleted] »

baddox wrote: post #31
codexon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You gave examples of assets that did not turn out to have positive value in the future. They absolutely had value at the time they were purchased.

[deleted]

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#35

Post by sliverstorm »

na85 wrote: post #16
wanderingstan wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A friend of mine joined chain.com and, as I understand it, their value proposition is to handle the load of blockchain while providing trusted access to whatever needs to be known. I'm no expert, but this seems like the right sort of solution for the problem you pose. Blockchain management is handled in the cloud, and clients (including embedded devices) talk securely to a trusted cloud service to get the relevant de…

That seems self defeating. None of the advantages of a decentralized system are realized by centralizing the blockchain

That's perhaps my favorite part of Bitcoin. For good or bad, it was started by people rallying against the big centralized banks, and now at every turn we are hitting reasons why centralization makes a lot of sense. I half suspect that eventually it will come to resemble the current centralized systems, whether people want it or not. For example, the number of complete blockchains is dwindling as more people individually elect to start using partial-blockchain clients because of space & traffic.

It's especially endearing to me because it's my primary objection to anarchists (of whom I have several as friends)- that the system they envision just isn't stable, and we arrived at the system we have now for that reason.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#36

Post by codexon »

drcode wrote: post #32
codexon wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I disagree- The value of something is "what you can get someone to pay for it." That is the only concrete, objective, and rational way to determine value. > Ask anyone that has been in a ponzi scheme/stock that went to 0 Well, given that you're stipulating a value of zero then clearly you are unable to get someone to pay for it and it's value is zero, by definition.

A ponzi scheme has a net value of 0 or less at any point in time.

Just because some people can get out more than they put in doesn't mean a ponzi scheme has created any value for the economy as a whole.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#37

Post by kevinnk »

hellbanner wrote: post #14
CHY872 wrote: post #9

I kinda get the author's point here - to run a proof of work based system you need an incentive to actually do the work. Bitcoin has such incentives, and so it will succeed for any tool that people try to run on it. If you try to create a new system, you have to convince people to do the work in the first place. So it makes much more sense to use bitcoin as your distributed consensus system, for whatever application…

an attempt at answering this: fact: people working on useful tools benefit us all problem: incentive is only big-picture, feel good. money is, by design, ridiculously hard to come by for helpful projects. teachers, farmers, babysitters, soldiers and many other professions provide valuable service to society yet make only a fraction of what money-manipulators (bankers who specialize in generating $$ from $) or cross-c…

Perhaps I don't really understand the idea here. What prevents a farmer from only accepting votes from their friends (or themselves) and generating as much FarmerCoin as they please?

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#38

Post by levlandau »

I'm pretty sure what people mean by "Blockchain not Bitcoin" is "Bitcoin 2.0" and not "Bitcoin 1.0" i.e. people think that the killer apps will be complex programs running on the blockchain that enable things like smart contracts etc much like search & social apps were more of killer apps than email which is the analog of bitcoin the currency. The point this article goes into detail to explain is likely not lost on people as smart as Sam Altman or Fred Wilson who say this.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#39

Post by sparaker »

I think its the decentralized nature that is the big win. However for bitcoin to really "win" is when people would actually prefer payments in bitcoin than any other medium. Which is not the case so far, except for illegal market places.

Re: Is Blockchain Really the Killer App?

#40

Post by baddox »

TylerE wrote: post #13
mandrake-c-papi wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I recently replaced an old HDD with a new SSD for my win7 install. I had over 100g of blockchains for various coins in my user app data folder. To rebuild from scratch would have taken days and a big chunk of my broadband data allowance. I know it's centralisation and goes against one of the features of the blockchain, but having trusted hubs through which to interact would save a lot of wasted space, time and data.…

You know what would save a lot more space, time, data, cpu power, hardware, and energy? Not using cryptocurrency.

Perhaps. And perhaps not using a computer or any electronic devices at all would further "save" those things. I don't see your point.
Post reply on HN