5 ms·

Is it just me or does all this "Blockchain doesn't have to be Bitcoin" ideology sound like "Uber is worth billion dollars. Let's build an Uber for X"? Even bef

Is it just me or does all this "Blockchain doesn't have to be Bitcoin" ideology sound like "Uber is worth billion dollars. Let's build an Uber for X"? Even before Bitcoin there were tons of attempts at implementing cryptocurrency, and none of them worked. It was Bitcoin that hit the jackpot for some reason, just like how human beings beat all the odds to become the top of the food chain on earth. I am not saying it's impossible, I just don't like how all this movement is driven by VCs, just like how all the "Uber for X" companies were driven by VCs, powered by naive entrepreneurs who thought just copycatting a successful model to a different domain would make them rich. I just think in most cases these copycat projects have no soul and that's why they fail, just like Uber for X companies never become Uber.

pmorici 10y ago
It think one of the issues at the core is that all these copy cats have a company or group of people behind them who stand to benefit if their block-chain gets traction. Because there is a lot of value if someone can control the block chain you see all these people trying. Bitcoin's creator on the other hand released their idea into the world and then disappeared. If it is eventually successful they don't stand to benefit any more than any other early adopter. It kind of reminds me of the early days of the Internet when you didn't get "Internet" you got AOL, or CompuServe, or whatever. All these companies wanted to control the network you connected into with their own branding. Eventually those companies all died and everyone realized that an open Internet with no one company controlling it at the core was the way things would go.
- lsc 10y ago
  >It kind of reminds me of the early days of the Internet when you didn't get "Internet" you got AOL, or CompuServe, or whatever. All these companies wanted to control the network you connected into with their own branding. Eventually those companies all died and everyone realized that an open Internet with no one company controlling it at the core was the way things would go. But aren't we moving back that direction? Now your local business doesn't have a website, they have a facebook. Turns out? people like walled gardens just fine, it's just that it's not as easy as it looks to build a walled garden and a last mile transport network.
  - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
    I think there's a distinction. Facebook/Google/etc are built on top of the Internet, which is an open platform. These companies we're talking about are basically trying to "become the Internet" (not something that builds on top of the Internet)
    - lsc 10y ago
      That's what I was saying about the last mile transport network; I mean, companies today still try; see what several parties keep trying to do with streaming. but they lose over and over. My point, though, is that people really do like the walled garden idea, even if none of the transport providers alone could have pulled it off.
    - aidenn0 10y ago
      AOL, Compuserve &c. were built on top of the CCITT standards (V.21 &c.), and the PSTN, which was a fairly open platform post 1968.
      - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
        I think you misunderstood what i said.
        aidenn0 10y ago
        Possibly. Where you trying to indicate a difference between AOL/Compuserve/etc and Facebook/Google/etc? If so, what was it?
        lsc 10y ago
        I think that most people think that starting a walled garden is easier when it's connected to an internet that everyone is always connected to. The internet is different from the PSTN network that connected you to CompuServe because if Facebook controlled your last mile the way AOL did, you'd need to coordinate with Facebook when you wanted to upgrade to the latest DSL or cable or what have you. The idea here is that once we got DSL and other "run gigabit ethernet over a series of rusty coat hangers that we have twisted together" level technologies, (I think it's fucking amazing that DSL works at all) in one location, one technology is going to work way better than others, and those other technologies might work way better in other locations. In walla walla you might get twice the speed on compuserve, while in San Jose, AOL might give you 4x the speed, if AOL and CompuServe ran their own networks. (to torture the metaphor) Of course, if you made the last mile technologies like DSL and Cable switch the endpoints of their connections as quickly as you can switch endpoints on a PSTN, sure, that would have solved the problem, too. But... really, that's kind of what the internet does. I think this is why walled gardens that include the last mile keep failing; the last mile is largely hard based on physical geography, and the walled gardens are hard based on your preferences, which often don't match up with your geography. I think that's why walled gardens are doing so much better now than they were in the '90s; these days, one set of companies focuses on the last mile, (and everyone has, comparatively speaking, astoundingly good last-mile access) and then a completely different set of companies can set up walled gardens to cater to various preferences, and the people that like that walled garden don't have to share a geography.
- woah 10y ago
  Are you kidding? IIRC satoshi mined huge amounts of Bitcoin before anyone else knew or cared about it.
  - pmorici 10y ago
    Not true at all. Satoshi released his paper publicly in Oct. 31st 2008 and the first Bitcoin block was mined Jan. 3rd 2009. The first Bitcoin related submission that I could find on HN was Feb. 2009. [0] I actually remember seeing a post about it here in 2009 and initially dismissing it because I didn't think it would gain enough traction and didn't take the time to understand how it was different than previous digital cash schemes. Bitcoin price didn't even hit $1 USD until the spring of 2011. It's true that Satoshi has a lot of Bitcoin but so does anyone who was there in Jan 2009 and had the vision to realize that Bitcoin was something fundamentally different and put effort into mining it. Compared to the way a lot of these other blockchains are being launch Bitcoin was by far the most egalitarian in the way coins were/are distributed. Most other coins retain a huge share of coins for the founding organizations through pre-mining schemes and other shenanigans. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793
    - Taek 10y ago
      I'm going to have to solidly disagree. Satoshi owns an estimated 1 million coins, 5% of the entire currency. If bitcoin were to become the global reserve currency, Satoshi would be the richest man in history by orders of magnitude. There's nothing egalitarian about that. Even if he told the world and tried to be fair, that's more money than any person should ever own.
      - hashmp 10y ago
        Only because he was an early adopter of his own product. He released it to the world and kept on mining to keep the project going. He didn't pre-mine and then release it. There is a big difference there. It just happened that it took time for people to catch on and join his mining efforts. He could have cashed out a long time ago for a large profit but those early coins attributed to him have never moved.
bbcbasic 10y ago
Maybe just you. First there is nothing wrong with copying another idea and trying to improve it. In a marketplace where lots of people are doing this, yes many of the attempts will be lame. Some will be very interesting. Bitcoin can be improved in many ways, for example to reduce the amount of energy required to mine it to avoid environmental damage, or to add more contract features, or just for fun (e.g. Dogecoin). I don't think it is like Uber for X at all. It's more like bringing out a new programming language. It's a Ruby and a Python and a GO when you have C++ already. C++ got there first so we could settle on that and say it won. And no more programming languages for X.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  > Maybe just you. Well, first of all I don't think it's "maybe just me", looking at the thread here. Also I do agree nothing's wrong with copying other's ideas. I was criticizing the money driven nature. Also I think your programming language analogy is great. I agree. I just don't think the success will come from anyone who follows a narrative from VCs or anyone whose motivation is to make money from this gold rush.
coolgeek 10y ago
> just like Uber for X companies never become Uber I get your point, but isn't Uber Airbnb for cars?
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  My point was you have to start something to solve an actual problem, not to replicate success in another category. It's really a subtle difference because the result may look similar: like you said, Uber is like an AirBnb for cars. But the difference is the founder didn't start out thinking "How do I take an AirBnb idea and apply it in another fast growing industry?" In my opinion this never never ends up performing better than the original idea because of exactly the question the guy asks: ".. another fast growing industry?" AirBnb started when there was 0 market for something like AirBnB, Uber started when there was 0 market for something like Uber. That's why they are where they are now. If it was so obvious, it would have been already tackled by other large companies that are looking to expand their business and AirBnb and Uber wouldn't have a chance.
wmf 10y ago
Bitcoin didn't succeed due to luck; it has two major innovations that previous systems didn't: consensus without trusted third parties and a built-in boom-bust cycle. Bitcoin still has some flaws so it's possible that a new cryptocurrency that solves them could be successful.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I never mentioned luck. Although luck was part of it--like 10%--still technology was innovative and hit the sweet spot. So yes, it didn't succeed due to luck. Like I said, I am not saying it's impossible. I just think VC-driven approach is not a good idea. Actually, I think the final technology that will succeed--be it Bitcoin or its alternative--will not have raised any money from VCs. I went to several Bitcoin meetups and noticed how a lot of people are talking about "compliance", which is important, but I don't think the true success will come from any entity that's restricted by all these social boundaries and the need to make money.
runeks 10y ago
> Is it just me or does all this "Blockchain doesn't have > to be Bitcoin" ideology sound like "Uber is worth > billion dollars. Let's build an Uber for X"? This line of thought may apply to altcoins, but Blockchain technology as a whole is not restricted to digital money. Blockchains are used for distributed consensus, but digital money is not the only application where trustless consensus is useful.
bernardlunn 10y ago
I would not put Ethereum in that camp. May have issues but it is hard core computer science.
inimino 10y ago
This is a proposed alternative that is fundamentally different from Bitcoin. The problem with Bitcoin is that mining is wasteful by design. Perhaps it doesn't much matter now, but if Bitcoin really took over and became the world's universal currency, I think we would see more concern about the inefficiency at the heart of it. A system that relies on wasting compute cycles just to prove that you wasted them feels like we are going about things the wrong way. It doesn't seem like a good direction for humanity to go in. I think it's good that people are looking for alternatives and unless it can be mathematically proven that no alternatives are possible I think we will eventually end up with something much better. I don't think it's fair to write off this article as "just another Bitcoin copycat" when it really is about something completely different.

pmorici 10y ago

It think one of the issues at the core is that all these copy cats have a company or group of people behind them who stand to benefit if their block-chain gets traction. Because there is a lot of value if someone can control the block chain you see all these people trying. Bitcoin's creator on the other hand released their idea into the world and then disappeared. If it is eventually successful they don't stand to benefit any more than any other early adopter. It kind of reminds me of the early days of the Internet when you didn't get "Internet" you got AOL, or CompuServe, or whatever. All these companies wanted to control the network you connected into with their own branding. Eventually those companies all died and everyone realized that an open Internet with no one company controlling it at the core was the way things would go.

lsc 10y ago
>It kind of reminds me of the early days of the Internet when you didn't get "Internet" you got AOL, or CompuServe, or whatever. All these companies wanted to control the network you connected into with their own branding. Eventually those companies all died and everyone realized that an open Internet with no one company controlling it at the core was the way things would go. But aren't we moving back that direction? Now your local business doesn't have a website, they have a facebook. Turns out? people like walled gardens just fine, it's just that it's not as easy as it looks to build a walled garden and a last mile transport network.
- cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
  I think there's a distinction. Facebook/Google/etc are built on top of the Internet, which is an open platform. These companies we're talking about are basically trying to "become the Internet" (not something that builds on top of the Internet)
  - lsc 10y ago
    That's what I was saying about the last mile transport network; I mean, companies today still try; see what several parties keep trying to do with streaming. but they lose over and over. My point, though, is that people really do like the walled garden idea, even if none of the transport providers alone could have pulled it off.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    AOL, Compuserve &c. were built on top of the CCITT standards (V.21 &c.), and the PSTN, which was a fairly open platform post 1968.
    - cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
      I think you misunderstood what i said.
      - aidenn0 10y ago
        Possibly. Where you trying to indicate a difference between AOL/Compuserve/etc and Facebook/Google/etc? If so, what was it?
        lsc 10y ago
        I think that most people think that starting a walled garden is easier when it's connected to an internet that everyone is always connected to. The internet is different from the PSTN network that connected you to CompuServe because if Facebook controlled your last mile the way AOL did, you'd need to coordinate with Facebook when you wanted to upgrade to the latest DSL or cable or what have you. The idea here is that once we got DSL and other "run gigabit ethernet over a series of rusty coat hangers that we have twisted together" level technologies, (I think it's fucking amazing that DSL works at all) in one location, one technology is going to work way better than others, and those other technologies might work way better in other locations. In walla walla you might get twice the speed on compuserve, while in San Jose, AOL might give you 4x the speed, if AOL and CompuServe ran their own networks. (to torture the metaphor) Of course, if you made the last mile technologies like DSL and Cable switch the endpoints of their connections as quickly as you can switch endpoints on a PSTN, sure, that would have solved the problem, too. But... really, that's kind of what the internet does. I think this is why walled gardens that include the last mile keep failing; the last mile is largely hard based on physical geography, and the walled gardens are hard based on your preferences, which often don't match up with your geography. I think that's why walled gardens are doing so much better now than they were in the '90s; these days, one set of companies focuses on the last mile, (and everyone has, comparatively speaking, astoundingly good last-mile access) and then a completely different set of companies can set up walled gardens to cater to various preferences, and the people that like that walled garden don't have to share a geography.
woah 10y ago
Are you kidding? IIRC satoshi mined huge amounts of Bitcoin before anyone else knew or cared about it.
- pmorici 10y ago
  Not true at all. Satoshi released his paper publicly in Oct. 31st 2008 and the first Bitcoin block was mined Jan. 3rd 2009. The first Bitcoin related submission that I could find on HN was Feb. 2009. [0] I actually remember seeing a post about it here in 2009 and initially dismissing it because I didn't think it would gain enough traction and didn't take the time to understand how it was different than previous digital cash schemes. Bitcoin price didn't even hit $1 USD until the spring of 2011. It's true that Satoshi has a lot of Bitcoin but so does anyone who was there in Jan 2009 and had the vision to realize that Bitcoin was something fundamentally different and put effort into mining it. Compared to the way a lot of these other blockchains are being launch Bitcoin was by far the most egalitarian in the way coins were/are distributed. Most other coins retain a huge share of coins for the founding organizations through pre-mining schemes and other shenanigans. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=463793
  - Taek 10y ago
    I'm going to have to solidly disagree. Satoshi owns an estimated 1 million coins, 5% of the entire currency. If bitcoin were to become the global reserve currency, Satoshi would be the richest man in history by orders of magnitude. There's nothing egalitarian about that. Even if he told the world and tried to be fair, that's more money than any person should ever own.
    - hashmp 10y ago
      Only because he was an early adopter of his own product. He released it to the world and kept on mining to keep the project going. He didn't pre-mine and then release it. There is a big difference there. It just happened that it took time for people to catch on and join his mining efforts. He could have cashed out a long time ago for a large profit but those early coins attributed to him have never moved.

bbcbasic 10y ago

Maybe just you. First there is nothing wrong with copying another idea and trying to improve it. In a marketplace where lots of people are doing this, yes many of the attempts will be lame. Some will be very interesting. Bitcoin can be improved in many ways, for example to reduce the amount of energy required to mine it to avoid environmental damage, or to add more contract features, or just for fun (e.g. Dogecoin). I don't think it is like Uber for X at all. It's more like bringing out a new programming language. It's a Ruby and a Python and a GO when you have C++ already. C++ got there first so we could settle on that and say it won. And no more programming languages for X.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
> Maybe just you. Well, first of all I don't think it's "maybe just me", looking at the thread here. Also I do agree nothing's wrong with copying other's ideas. I was criticizing the money driven nature. Also I think your programming language analogy is great. I agree. I just don't think the success will come from anyone who follows a narrative from VCs or anyone whose motivation is to make money from this gold rush.

coolgeek 10y ago

> just like Uber for X companies never become Uber I get your point, but isn't Uber Airbnb for cars?

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
My point was you have to start something to solve an actual problem, not to replicate success in another category. It's really a subtle difference because the result may look similar: like you said, Uber is like an AirBnb for cars. But the difference is the founder didn't start out thinking "How do I take an AirBnb idea and apply it in another fast growing industry?" In my opinion this never never ends up performing better than the original idea because of exactly the question the guy asks: ".. another fast growing industry?" AirBnb started when there was 0 market for something like AirBnB, Uber started when there was 0 market for something like Uber. That's why they are where they are now. If it was so obvious, it would have been already tackled by other large companies that are looking to expand their business and AirBnb and Uber wouldn't have a chance.

wmf 10y ago

Bitcoin didn't succeed due to luck; it has two major innovations that previous systems didn't: consensus without trusted third parties and a built-in boom-bust cycle. Bitcoin still has some flaws so it's possible that a new cryptocurrency that solves them could be successful.

cocktailpeanuts 10y ago
I never mentioned luck. Although luck was part of it--like 10%--still technology was innovative and hit the sweet spot. So yes, it didn't succeed due to luck. Like I said, I am not saying it's impossible. I just think VC-driven approach is not a good idea. Actually, I think the final technology that will succeed--be it Bitcoin or its alternative--will not have raised any money from VCs. I went to several Bitcoin meetups and noticed how a lot of people are talking about "compliance", which is important, but I don't think the true success will come from any entity that's restricted by all these social boundaries and the need to make money.

runeks 10y ago

> Is it just me or does all this "Blockchain doesn't have > to be Bitcoin" ideology sound like "Uber is worth > billion dollars. Let's build an Uber for X"? This line of thought may apply to altcoins, but Blockchain technology as a whole is not restricted to digital money. Blockchains are used for distributed consensus, but digital money is not the only application where trustless consensus is useful.

bernardlunn 10y ago

I would not put Ethereum in that camp. May have issues but it is hard core computer science.

inimino 10y ago

This is a proposed alternative that is fundamentally different from Bitcoin. The problem with Bitcoin is that mining is wasteful by design. Perhaps it doesn't much matter now, but if Bitcoin really took over and became the world's universal currency, I think we would see more concern about the inefficiency at the heart of it. A system that relies on wasting compute cycles just to prove that you wasted them feels like we are going about things the wrong way. It doesn't seem like a good direction for humanity to go in. I think it's good that people are looking for alternatives and unless it can be mathematically proven that no alternatives are possible I think we will eventually end up with something much better. I don't think it's fair to write off this article as "just another Bitcoin copycat" when it really is about something completely different.