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

Half of ICOs Die Within Four Months After Token Sales Finalized

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 433 posts

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

#371

Post by kvakva »

chrisco255 wrote: post #232
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a hypothetical crypto dominated world, most people would still use centralized services to store their money. But they'd have the ability to opt out if and when they choose The problem with this vision is those people using centralized services see no benefit. They are better off sticking with the status quo . Cryptocurrencies make sense for people who wish, for philosophically reasons, to control their own mone…

It's not true that they see no benefit. They will see benefit in: 1) cheaper financial services 2) broader financial services 3) real-time financial services 4) access to financial services regardless of location (or nation) 5) decentralized applications fully integrated with financial services The average Joe doesn't need to control their own private keys in order to gain these benefits. But think of it this way. Wh…

1. This was clearly true in the beggings now to so much. Scalability is hard issue which centralized solutions doesn't have.

Existing solutions also evolve and has become cheaper, faster and more accessible. Sure there are exceptions like political dissidents but that's relatively small group. If you would like to solve this issues on large scales like Venezuela than solutions would be mostly political rather than technical.

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

#372

Post by maxencecornet »

marktolson wrote: post #359
maxencecornet wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brave Browser / Basic attention Token is very successful although in it's early days But Brendan Eich, the founder of the project, is much more experienced then any random ICO project founder in this space I'm not sure he will succeed where Flattr failed, but we'll see ! Check out how many websites are already Brave/BAT publishers: https://batgrowth.com/publishers Vice - freeCodeCamp - BitTorrent - xhamster - The Gua…

Wait so BAT with its $250M market cap has < 600 sites in the Alexa top 1 million??? That's like 6 hundreths of a percent. That's a terrible rate of adoption considering the hype behind BAT.

>Wait so BAT with its $250M market cap has The script is still running at the moment, right now it's 600 sites in the top 230k, around 0.25%

The cron job should be over by tomorrow

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

#373

Post by jonhendry18 »

chrisco255 wrote: post #130
hudon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per your citation, ARPAnet came online in 1969 and emails were being exchanged by 1972, barely 3 years later. Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any.

Emails were being exchanged, to what extent? Could you email anyone in the world in 1972? No, like two people could e-mail each other. It's not like you had Gmail or even AOL in 1972. Yes, email was used for business purposes in the 80s...but it took a long, long time for the internet to reach mass adoption and maturity. Decades. Meanwhile, Ethereum was launched in 2015. Unless you think the tech has hit an evolution…

"Newsgroup experiments first occurred in 1979. Tom Truscott and Jim Ellis of Duke University came up with the idea as a replacement for a local announcement program, and established a link with nearby University of North Carolina using Bourne shell scripts written by Steve Bellovin. The public release of news was in the form of conventional compiled software, written by Steve Daniel and Truscott. In 1980, Usenet was connected to ARPANET through UC Berkeley which had connections to both Usenet and ARPANET. "

"Usenet gained 50 member sites in its first year, including Reed College, University of Oklahoma, and Bell Labs,[5] and the number of people using the network increased dramatically; "

"UUCP networks spread quickly due to the lower costs involved, and the ability to use existing leased lines, X.25 links or even ARPANET connections. By 1983, thousands of people participated from more than 500 hosts, mostly universities and Bell Labs sites but also a growing number of Unix-related companies; the number of hosts nearly doubled to 940 in 1984. More than 100 newsgroups existed, more than 20 devoted to Unix and other computer-related topics, and at least a third to recreation"

Sites participating in Usenet were using UUCP, which also allowed email.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usenet#Network

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

#374

Post by kvakva »

chrisco255 wrote: post #219
jopsen wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

None of the what the crypto-currencies promise is impossible to do with a few independent central vendors implementing that same standards for payments and contracts. And centralized solutions will always be faster.

Centralized databases are faster. Centralized consensus is dangerous for the same reason that a dictatorship is dangerous. The organization in charge of said solution would exercise dramatic control over the execution of said code. You need not look very far into the past to see egregious examples of organizations abusing their centralized position over data. I shudder the thought of a centralized actor having the sa…

There are rarely completely centralized consensus. You have different sides which for better or worse create consensus together. You have a law, prosecutors, activists. Sure you have corrupt politicians which centralized power a lot but this would is a problem for crypto space as well because of the people will access crypto through a classical business which can lobby for own interest.

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

#375

Post by arisAlexis »

jonhendry18 wrote: post #355
arisAlexis wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the main argument of Blockchain since its a public ledger is totally the opposite. total transparency in government, voting, public expenses etc.

It need not be a public ledger. I'd think it'd be simple enough to limit access to an intranet.

you mean people should trust the intranet of Putin during the elections something like that?

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

#376

Post by arisAlexis »

opencl wrote: post #230
arisAlexis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

they cannot send or receive usd from abroad. they can do it with bitcoin. you get now the value proposition of a global currency that is not government controlled?

People in Venezuela certainly do send and receive USD from abroad, it is obviously the only way it gets into the country. You can go to a grocery store and buy food with USD. This is what people are actually doing . I suppose you can try to convince the people at your local grocery store to accept cryptocurrencies but good luck with that. And good luck using cryptocurrencies in a country that suffers from frequent bl…

for sure people that live in Europe cannot deposit good amounts of USD to send through the bank to their relatives there. I know this for a fact. I think you are misinformed.

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

#377

Post by madeofpalk »

darawk wrote: post #259
tomp wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Eventually people are going to realize that (1) all of these can essentially require transparency + encryption (i.e. git + signatures), not the whole blockchain, (2) hence can be had without the huge energy losses (that come from many nodes (re-)computing the same result over and over, and (3) centralisation is a feature most people want, because it helps resolve conflicts (à la Vitalik's centralised resolution of th…

> all of these can essentially require transparency + encryption (i.e. git + signatures), not the whole blockchain, That's just empirically not true. You need to timestamp transactions in a BFT way for all those examples. No way around it. > hence can be had without the huge energy losses (that come from many nodes (re-)computing the same result over and over, and You can get this with Proof of Stake. But you do need…

> It will take time to figure out how to do decentralization well.

How long do we have to wait to find how to do decentralization well? It's been 10 years now and we're still asking the same question.

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

#378

Post by madeofpalk »

hannasanarion wrote: post #289
darawk wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if there are no conflicts (double spends). What about when there are, though?

Then let the person that everyone agrees to be an authority (the project owner) decide, not the person who happens to own the most GPUs.

How is this any different from a government or central bank?

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

#379

Post by madeofpalk »

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…

I haven't worried about serial keys in years. Didn't need blockchain for that.

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

#380

Post by yc-kraln »

xur17 wrote: post #75
hudon wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As per your citation, ARPAnet came online in 1969 and emails were being exchanged by 1972, barely 3 years later. Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any.

> Blockchains have been around for 10 years now and every year they cause bigger problems without actually solving any. Being able to transfer value between two parties without having to trust anyone has value. We can argue about how much value, but it's non-zero.

This is wrong. The trust is still centralized, but on the developers of the platform/crypto chain/smart contract, rather than on an institution. This has the incredible downside that if something goes wrong, I have no recourse.
Post reply on HN