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

The Decentralized Future

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 144 posts

Re: The Decentralized Future

#71

Post by Rhapso »

slovette wrote: post #66
Rhapso wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lightning networks to handle scaling limitations are the first step on the slow re-centralization of bitcoin. Eventually an overwhelming majority mining will be controlled by a centralized/federated oligopoly. Be prepared to rebel and re-re-decentralize in 20 years.

I think I’d probably agree with you. But Blockchain technology (the backbone of a decentralized movement) is the parent to bitcoin. I’m speaking on Blockchain, not bitcoin.

Even viewing it more generically, the same scaling issues apply, and the same inevitable re-decentralization awaits it. Centralized systems trade robustness for efficiency. The drive to lower costs will always result in re-centralization.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#72

Post by skybrian »

freech wrote: post #70
skybrian wrote: post #69

re: "The question is not whether [databases] are going to be hacked or not, the question is when. These are natural honeypots for hackers." This is not a good argument for cryptocurrency. Just like a regular wallet attracts pickpockets, a Bitcoin wallet is a natural honeypot for hackers. Just like a bank attracts bank robbers, a crypto exchange is a natural honeypot for hackers. Really, the issue here is money. Money…

The difference here is that if I fail to secure my wallet only I loose my money, but if the bank fails to secure their database, all its customers loose their money.

Do you know an example of a bank that lost its customers' money due to being hacked?

On the other hand, plenty of crypto exchanges have been hacked.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#73

Post by glitch003 »

marknadal wrote: post #39

> However, right now you need to install browser extensions like Metamask to interact with websites that enable “crypto functionality”. They are still really clunky and the average user does not know they even exist. This is not true, you can already build (and people are) dApps that run in the browser (no extension) using the latest native Web Crypto API that we've made easy to use: https://hackernoon.com/so-you-wan…

By "crypto functionality" the author means talking to a blockchain, not doing cryptographic operations. Metamask, the example given, is a browser extension that provides access to the Ethereum blockchain by injecting a JS object into the web page. It provides a wallet and transaction signing and broadcasting. Web crypto API's are quite different.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#74

Post by a_d »

rrecuero wrote: post #68
a_d wrote: post #67

PG/YC started a revolution: They suggested a way through which programmers came into money. Now, with Bitcoin and Cryptocurrencies: Programmers are creating money itself. This article makes a bull-case very articulately, with sprinklings of realism. I am looking forward to this series. Being a blockchain cynic is the norm these days, and I appreciate when someone takes the trouble to lay down a well-reasoned and well…

Thank you for your kind words. My goal was exactly that; to show that there is something beyond the irrational optimism, extreme cynicism, scams and bubble talks that dominate conversations. As you mentioned, asset tokenization (securitization) is one of the biggest markets. If companies like Harbor achieve their vision, it would be huge.

Harbor is promising. Their paper and code is still light on the details, but I am rooting for them. There are some open questions around compliant secondary trading, real world enforcement etc - but very promising direction. Do you know other projects that are attempting real asset security tokens?

Re: The Decentralized Future

#75

Post by rrecuero »

skybrian wrote: post #72
freech wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference here is that if I fail to secure my wallet only I loose my money, but if the bank fails to secure their database, all its customers loose their money.

Do you know an example of a bank that lost its customers' money due to being hacked? On the other hand, plenty of crypto exchanges have been hacked.

A centralized crypto exchange is as centralized as a bank. Both have the same security risks. What cannot get hacked in the same way are decentralized exchanges like RadarRelay

Re: The Decentralized Future

#76

Post by rrecuero »

a_d wrote: post #74
rrecuero wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your kind words. My goal was exactly that; to show that there is something beyond the irrational optimism, extreme cynicism, scams and bubble talks that dominate conversations. As you mentioned, asset tokenization (securitization) is one of the biggest markets. If companies like Harbor achieve their vision, it would be huge.

Harbor is promising. Their paper and code is still light on the details, but I am rooting for them. There are some open questions around compliant secondary trading, real world enforcement etc - but very promising direction. Do you know other projects that are attempting real asset security tokens?

There are others like Polymath but Harbor is the most promising right now imo

Re: The Decentralized Future

#77

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

spookthesunset wrote: post #46
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not because cryptoassets are bad, it's because you read an investment book instead of technology book. (I read the cryptoassets book too and I think it's a great book, it's just that it's not a book to solve the specific problem you're talking about) I can confirm from my own experience that reading pop-sci books about blockchains--although they sound really cool and do provide motivation to look furth…

> When you do so, you'll get the "enlightment" you were looking for. Which is what? That the blockchain is a solution in search of a problem? There is very, very little reason to use a cumbersome data structure when better ones exist (eg: just a regular database, or something like git). Worse, the only way the blockchain gets all it's supposed valuable attributes is when you provide a financial incentive to mine. Aka…

Internet was a "solution in search of a problem" too.

That said, you're free to believe what you want to believe.

Just one thing though, everything you said above I heard hundreds of times before, and there are good explanations for them. I just don't have time to argue here because these are things you can find out on your own if you put your mind into it. (To be honest I don't think I can convince you no matter how I try unless you open up your mind, so I won't try)

Anyway, if you don't care, that's fine too. It's not like not believing in cryptocurrency will doom your future. You'll do fine. And even if the whole thing fails, I'll do fine too. But it's always good to have an open mind about things you don't yet completely understand and try to learn. ("Thinking that you understand completely" doesn't count as actually completely understanding)

Re: The Decentralized Future

#78

Post by skybrian »

rrecuero wrote: post #75
skybrian wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you know an example of a bank that lost its customers' money due to being hacked? On the other hand, plenty of crypto exchanges have been hacked.

A centralized crypto exchange is as centralized as a bank. Both have the same security risks. What cannot get hacked in the same way are decentralized exchanges like RadarRelay

I guess, but looking at RadarRelay, apparently you can't trade anything except Ethereum-based tokens, so that's barely an exchange.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#79

Post by plokiju »

spookthesunset wrote: post #46
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem is not because cryptoassets are bad, it's because you read an investment book instead of technology book. (I read the cryptoassets book too and I think it's a great book, it's just that it's not a book to solve the specific problem you're talking about) I can confirm from my own experience that reading pop-sci books about blockchains--although they sound really cool and do provide motivation to look furth…

> When you do so, you'll get the "enlightment" you were looking for. Which is what? That the blockchain is a solution in search of a problem? There is very, very little reason to use a cumbersome data structure when better ones exist (eg: just a regular database, or something like git). Worse, the only way the blockchain gets all it's supposed valuable attributes is when you provide a financial incentive to mine. Aka…

> There is very, very little reason to use a cumbersome data structure when better ones exist

Do you not see any value in decentralization? In theory with blockchains, you could replace giant companies with open-source programs that pay for their own server costs with transaction fees, without taking any profit margin off the top. That would be very interesting for stuff like cloud storage and social networks. You can argue it's overly idealistic and may not work out, but you can't pretend there's no value in decentralization

Re: The Decentralized Future

#80

Post by marknadal »

glitch003 wrote: post #73
marknadal wrote: post #39

> However, right now you need to install browser extensions like Metamask to interact with websites that enable “crypto functionality”. They are still really clunky and the average user does not know they even exist. This is not true, you can already build (and people are) dApps that run in the browser (no extension) using the latest native Web Crypto API that we've made easy to use: https://hackernoon.com/so-you-wan…

By "crypto functionality" the author means talking to a blockchain, not doing cryptographic operations. Metamask, the example given, is a browser extension that provides access to the Ethereum blockchain by injecting a JS object into the web page. It provides a wallet and transaction signing and broadcasting. Web crypto API's are quite different.

Both are possible, if you read through more.
Post reply on HN