3 ms·

The whole premises of this whole technology is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/50tyub/were_the_nerds_behind_lbry_a_decentralized/d76xm3j https://w

The whole premises of this whole technology is this: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/50tyub/were_the_nerds_behind_lbry_a_decentralized/d76xm3j https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/50tyub/were_the_nerds... In particular this bit: >Our goal is to create a system where the URL a user guesses is the most likely to return what they are actually looking for. Economics says this design is the most likely to do so, because the URL is most valuable when it returns what users want. I very much doubt that orthodox economics actually supports their claim. At the very least it's probably not as simple as they make it out to be. This has always been a problem I had with crypto technologies. Those who get involved seem to have an attraction towards very simplistic economic notions and an aversion to more refined theory, that is much more able to deal with reality as opposed to that simple sandbox economic world their mindset seems to permanently inhibit.

teraflop 10y ago
Yep. Their assumption is that whatever content users "want to see" will be most valuable to those users, and will therefore generate the most revenue, and will therefore be able to outbid other competitors. Problem #1: people aren't in general rational, and willingness to pay isn't always correlated with value derived. How many people benefit from Wikipedia, compared with the number who donate money? Problem #2 (more severe IMO): if I understand correctly (the white paper is very hazy on details), the bidding process is based on capital, not income. Anyone with sufficient reserves of LBC can squat on a name and extract value from it with zero recurring cost.
davidgerard 10y ago
They're into Austrian economics. One posted on the Reddit AMA about being an "anarchist" in the Rothbardian sense. Their GMU professor thought the economics were great!

teraflop 10y ago

Yep. Their assumption is that whatever content users "want to see" will be most valuable to those users, and will therefore generate the most revenue, and will therefore be able to outbid other competitors. Problem #1: people aren't in general rational, and willingness to pay isn't always correlated with value derived. How many people benefit from Wikipedia, compared with the number who donate money? Problem #2 (more severe IMO): if I understand correctly (the white paper is very hazy on details), the bidding process is based on capital, not income. Anyone with sufficient reserves of LBC can squat on a name and extract value from it with zero recurring cost.

davidgerard 10y ago

They're into Austrian economics. One posted on the Reddit AMA about being an "anarchist" in the Rothbardian sense. Their GMU professor thought the economics were great!