Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized • Hacker News Board

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#361

Post by throwawayqdhd » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 8:52 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #139

confiscate wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What attributes about crypto, makes you feel the same way? i.e. that it is going to be revolutionary Because the example you said about the internet (from loading webpage to video streaming) does sound amazing. What's the "parallel" for crypto that you see?

Streaming money. What if you were paid by the second instead of by the hour? Or your bank account filled up live as you worked or performed services? Or companies that provided services to other companies were compensated in the same way? Businesses live and die by cash flow. What if cash flows instantly 24/7? What if you were able to do micropayments efficiently on the web? What if many contractual agreements betwee…

> Businesses live and die by cash flow. What if cash flows instantly 24/7?

Business payments are delayed not because there is an underlying fault in the payment systems (wire transfers are nearly instantaneous, at least within the country), but because businesses sit on payments.

A new technology isn't going to solve this problem. Businesses like to hold onto invoices as long as they can get away with it.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#362

Post by kvakva » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 8:55 AM UTC

solotronics wrote: post #342

danans wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Beyond curiosity, what practical purpose would such a tool serve vs other methods of verifying assets?

by signing with a keypair you could prove to anyone online you owned something. to list a house or get a loan or mortgage you could use this. a really neat case for this would be lost items. if each cellphone had its IMEI and your keypair associated you could prove you owned something lost. or if found someone could look you up to return it. you could buy a game or software once and never have to worry about a serial…

You can do this now, by having centralized state based repository with API. Estonia might have something like this already.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#363

Post by wpietri » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 8:56 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #336

wpietri wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. It does not. In 1995 the Internet was useful for 30m people. In 1985 it was useful for 30,000. Email was better than paper mail from the get-go. Networked file transfer was way better than mailing magtapes or CDs. Remote terminal connections were way better than driving or doing long-distance dialup. The Internet was not the wonder it is today, but from very early o…

> It does not. In 1995 the Internet was useful for 30m people. In 1985 it was useful for 30,000. Email was better than paper mail from the get-go. You see that now . But in 1985 most people thought email was silly, if they knew about it at all. Why replace the mail? The mail is fine. It's only when you look back on it, with modern eyes, that you see how great it was. > Not really. I ask regularly here, and so far the…

Having lived through 1985, most people did not think email was silly. Even we primitives of that dark age could tell that instant delivery was generally better than waiting a few days.

Moreover, the "most people" standard does not apply. I'm not asking what "most people" think about Bitcoin. I'm asking for evidence of delivered value to early-adopter audiences. In 1985 any crowd of tech people could tell you why email was better. It would have been easy to find non-technical academic staff who were excited about email, as many of them had been using (mostly non-Internet) email for years at that point. Neutral observers could easily be shown that it was valuable.

> I stated some above. But i'll copy/paste:

No, what you stated above was hypothetical. None of those are areas where blockchains are demonstrated to be better than commercial alternatives for any significant audience.

Ten years ago, even five years ago, I would have given you a pass for selling the amazing possibility rather than any actual facts. Sorry, but time's up on that. I'm asking for proof of traction, not further hype.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#364

Post by kvakva » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:06 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #235

pwinnski wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement you are defending was "Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value." Compared to wire transfers, one is required to trust the intermediary in that case. I think at that point it becomes fair to ask: what is the likelihood that I am going to lose money unexpectedly to my credit union, or my recipient to her bank? And then by comparison, what is the likelihood…

> Compared to wire transfers, one is required to trust the intermediary in that case. You're totally right. But let me flip the question around a little bit. What would our financial system look like if we didn't have to place so much trust in our intermediaries? It's not that banks aren't trustworthy. They are. They're extremely good stewards of the public trust, for the most part. But the fact that we place so much…

How exactly blockchains helps with that? It's open protocol which helps but most of the people interact with it through centralized points wallets providers, exchanges etc and we already see classic centralization. It seems to me similar as it is with Facebook which interacts with open protocols but is many people have to go through it and solutions seem to be legislatively rather than technological(although I hope projects like blockstack can help with this)

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#365

Post by jonhendry18 » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:10 AM UTC

aboodman wrote: post #106

darawk wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's weird because people compare it to the early days of the Internet... but the early Internet was useful from its beginning That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. But more to the point, blockchains are useful now, just like the internet was. They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. > Now, all we see is rampant fraud and a complete d…

> They're just not useful for all the things that are being promised (yet). Also, just like the internet wasn't. Exactly. The early internet was full of promises of taking over retail. None of that worked, at first. Instead the internet was useful for messaging and putting up personal websites. All the responsible people at the time kept whining -- how is it going to make money?? Well, people kept working on it. For…

"how is it going to make money"

$6.00 an hour, outside of business hours, for 300 baud access to CompuServe.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#366

Post by joosters » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:11 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #336

wpietri wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That really depends on where you put 'beginning'. It does not. In 1995 the Internet was useful for 30m people. In 1985 it was useful for 30,000. Email was better than paper mail from the get-go. Networked file transfer was way better than mailing magtapes or CDs. Remote terminal connections were way better than driving or doing long-distance dialup. The Internet was not the wonder it is today, but from very early o…

> It does not. In 1995 the Internet was useful for 30m people. In 1985 it was useful for 30,000. Email was better than paper mail from the get-go. You see that now . But in 1985 most people thought email was silly, if they knew about it at all. Why replace the mail? The mail is fine. It's only when you look back on it, with modern eyes, that you see how great it was. > Not really. I ask regularly here, and so far the…

Prediction markets work just fine already, thanks. The blockchain equivalents are a terrible use of the technology, since they need to use external sources to get the results of markets. This means either trusting a centralized service (and so negating all of the advantages of a blockchain) or some complicated web of voting for the results (open to manipulation and over-the-top complexity)

Meanwhile, existing systems like Betfair's betting exchange have been working for over a decade.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#367

Post by jonhendry18 » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:13 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #100

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The transfer itself does not require trust Cash transfers and barters are trustless. Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies ( i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the most reliable part of the trust chain while exacerbating every other element of transaction risk.

> Cash transfers and barters are trustless Yes, but they require physical presence. > Wires are trustless (in being reasonably irrevocable) in a manner similar to cryptocurrencies (i.e. if we ignore the plumbing). Irrevocability is not the same as trustlessness. Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise. > Cryptocurrencies solve for trust in the mos…

"Your transaction is still being intermediated by an entity that can choose to appropriate your funds otherwise."

They have a strong business interest in not doing so. Because the identity of the entity is known, and thus subject to reputation loss.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#368

Post by fabiandesimone » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:14 AM UTC

mrnobody_67 wrote: post #7

I'm so surprised that smart contracts aren't being used to release the funds over some set of time, with the ability for community to vote to block it if they feel team has stalled. Nobody needs $20 or $50m on day 1.

There's a team in Spain that's doing exactly this: https://cgs.vote/

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#369

Post by jonhendry18 » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:15 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #235

pwinnski wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement you are defending was "Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value." Compared to wire transfers, one is required to trust the intermediary in that case. I think at that point it becomes fair to ask: what is the likelihood that I am going to lose money unexpectedly to my credit union, or my recipient to her bank? And then by comparison, what is the likelihood…

> Compared to wire transfers, one is required to trust the intermediary in that case. You're totally right. But let me flip the question around a little bit. What would our financial system look like if we didn't have to place so much trust in our intermediaries? It's not that banks aren't trustworthy. They are. They're extremely good stewards of the public trust, for the most part. But the fact that we place so much…

"But the fact that we place so much trust in them has systemic effects that are stifling to innovation"

Large banks have a lot of money to buy influence; that's the source of their systemic risk.

But you can do wire transfers at small banks and credit unions.

Re: Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

#370

Post by jonhendry18 » Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:16 AM UTC

darawk wrote: post #153

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does that have to do with what we're talking about? Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X ( e.g. , a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y ( e.g. an FDIC-insured bank).

> Generally speaking, if my things get stolen, "it was stolen by X and not Y" is not a value-adding rebuttal. It is actually counterproductive if X (e.g., a cryptocurrency thief) is harder to gain recourse against than Y (e.g. an FDIC-insured bank). That's certainly true. But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security. Essentially crypt…

"But the issues around people losing their coins and having their keys stolen can be solved by better UX and application security"

Unless it's an Mt.Gox situation.