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

91–100 of 144 posts

Re: The Decentralized Future

#91

Post by CryptoPunk »

skybrian wrote: post #78
rrecuero wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

92 of the top 100 tokens and something like 40 of the top 100 crypto assets (tokens and coins), by market capitalization, are Ethereum-based tokens, so that is a substantial potential market.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#92

Post by rrecuero »

tramGG wrote: post #37
rrecuero wrote: post #2

Happy to answer any follow-up questions here

Have you looked into things like Synapse.ai ? They are building exactly what you're talking about in terms of data/AI/ML/currency/ownership. Here is their founder giving a presentation about it at the Decentralized AI Summit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9QMgVsbHu98 It ties together things like the "Who owns the future" book by Jaron Lanier and AI/Bots/APIs for new economies.

Thanks for sharing. Reminds me a bit of Numerai

Re: The Decentralized Future

#93

Post by naasking »

Rhapso wrote: post #71
slovette wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The scaling problems aren't necessarily only a symptom of decentralization. Proof of stake scales much better than proof of work, for instance.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#94

Post by fartnuggs »

Rhapso wrote: post #59
slovette wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is just an example of technical change aligning itself with real world human want. People will ALWAYS put convenience first. Even those that say they won’t, it’s typically an isolated action (like, email is harder when not using google apps, but it’s worth not being spied on. Walk in their house, Echos and smart devices everywhere). The hope for Blockchain is we can now, finally, begin building true decentralize…

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.

Personally I'm much more bullish on Bitcoin Cash. It's following the same path that got us to this point today, and they're not opposed to Layer 2. But they have a clear understanding that a currency is only as good as it's utility. If they can maintain that balance of decentralization, utility, and security, while picking up the pieces that Bitcoin Core dropped it's likely we'll see a flippening in the coming year.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#95

Post by EGreg »

Wow. This blog post literally parallels what my colleagues and I have been writing and working on for the past 6 months at Intercoin.

I mean, look at the video right here: https://intercoin.org/

It even uses the same terms, such as "Power to the People". https://qbix.com/blog/index.php/2017/12/power-to-the-people/

I am glad that these challenges in crypto are finally being recognized and publicly written about at YC. Perhaps we should apply!

Re: The Decentralized Future

#96

Post by EGreg »

skywhopper wrote: post #62

I don’t see any actual practical use cases described here that make mainstream adoption of blockchain tech make any sense. Or any concrete arguments about how it improves current systems. And the weaknesses of blockchain are glossed over or ignored. And “it’s never been hacked” is the frankly pretty toothless argument in favor of its security. Basically this is a weak article for Y Combinator to be publishing. If thi…

Blockchains boil down to one thing:

Where before you had to trust one server, now you can have many. Multiple writers, multiple readers. That's all.

They are a drop-in replacement for having to trust admins.

On the other hand, backups and replicas could prevent other things, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1d5VvCa8Fo

Re: The Decentralized Future

#97

Post by mrep »

EGreg wrote: post #96
skywhopper wrote: post #62

I don’t see any actual practical use cases described here that make mainstream adoption of blockchain tech make any sense. Or any concrete arguments about how it improves current systems. And the weaknesses of blockchain are glossed over or ignored. And “it’s never been hacked” is the frankly pretty toothless argument in favor of its security. Basically this is a weak article for Y Combinator to be publishing. If thi…

Blockchains boil down to one thing: Where before you had to trust one server, now you can have many. Multiple writers, multiple readers. That's all. They are a drop-in replacement for having to trust admins. On the other hand, backups and replicas could prevent other things, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1d5VvCa8Fo

> Where before you had to trust one server, now you can have many. Multiple writers, multiple readers. That's all.

Those multiple writers, multiple readers are not free. They waste billions in server/electricity costs over traditional architecture designs. The most prominent blockchain bitcoin costs 2.5 billion dollars a year [0] to process a miniscule fraction of what Visa can handle.

[0]: https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

Re: The Decentralized Future

#98

Post by skybrian »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #91
skybrian wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

92 of the top 100 tokens and something like 40 of the top 100 crypto assets (tokens and coins), by market capitalization, are Ethereum-based tokens, so that is a substantial potential market.

That's okay as far as it goes but it's very limiting. Everything that really matters in life and nearly all possible investments are not on any blockchain. Even for crypto coins, the most important trades are for things not on a blockchain.

Re: The Decentralized Future

#99

Post by mrep »

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #77
spookthesunset wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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

No, no it wasn't. Close to light speed communication provided about 10 orders of magnitude faster/cheaper communication than before. I cannot even fathom how someone would not immediately realize how that massive increase in communication would not be useful.

Contrast this with blockchains which are practically 10 orders of magnitude more COSTLY since every node has to process every transaction when you could just do that on one server (hence why bitcoin transactions cost 2.5 Billion dollars a year to process a fraction of what Visa can process).

Re: The Decentralized Future

#100

Post by hobofan »

mrep wrote: post #97
EGreg wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Blockchains boil down to one thing: Where before you had to trust one server, now you can have many. Multiple writers, multiple readers. That's all. They are a drop-in replacement for having to trust admins. On the other hand, backups and replicas could prevent other things, such as: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1d5VvCa8Fo

> Where before you had to trust one server, now you can have many. Multiple writers, multiple readers. That's all. Those multiple writers, multiple readers are not free. They waste billions in server/electricity costs over traditional architecture designs. The most prominent blockchain bitcoin costs 2.5 billion dollars a year [0] to process a miniscule fraction of what Visa can handle. [0]: https://digiconomist.net/b…

YES, we know! If there truly isn't an alternative to PoW, yes then we are pretty much fucked. Quite a few more efficient alternatives are currently being tested (and I guess a lot more are to come), and it looks very promising.
Post reply on HN