5 ms·

I would find your pitch much more interesting if you didn't go from "look at this very cool technology" to "look how we're changing the world for the better for

I would find your pitch much more interesting if you didn't go from "look at this very cool technology" to "look how we're changing the world for the better for these poor people in Africa". Be realistic. How many Sub-Saharan Africans are using Token or working on it right now? You're first-world devs working on first-world tech and wrapping it up in humanitarian terms because it makes you more attractive. It's kind of exploitative. It's all about money at the end of the day, isn't it? I apologize for the rant. Just had a semester of classes on faith and development and law and development and this stuff is often very complex and a type of unintentional colonialism often runs through it. "Hey, check out these people! Check out how much they need our help! Wouldn't things be so much better if we did X for them?" In many cases, yes, but in a lot of ways it is impossible for people who aren't on the ground to properly understand culture, context, and needs. Does the team have anyone on the ground? Is this informed by research on the topic? From a less critical perspective, a portion of the site dedicated to such research (and thus informing the goals) would be really cool and useful.

Freak_NL 10y ago
> It's all about money at the end of the day, isn't it? I'm still having a hard time seeing any cryptocurrency based application as anything but an attempt to facilitate speculation based on that currency's value. There seem to be so many perverse incentives inherent to this technology that I automatically find any idealistic application of it suspect. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but all cryptocurrencies seem to boil down to a system that would immensely benefit whoever came up with that particular currency (by virtue of having mined all the early blocks before going public or whatever) and whoever invested early if it ever took off.
- jacquesm 10y ago
  > Perhaps this is overly cynical Probably not, especially not for all the coins started after bitcoin took off. Bitcoin itself may be an exception but without a reliable genesis story it's impossible to know for sure.
  - nsebban 10y ago
    AFAIK Bitcoin early-mined blocks were mined and are still owned by its creator. So it's perfectly ok to be cynical about Bitcoin as well. Edit: Some details here https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-f...
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      They are owned or their wallet has long ago been lost. It's not all that hard to permanently erase some bitcoins.
  - tchaffee 10y ago
    Bitcoin creator(s) hold bitcoin worth a cool couple billion USD. Be very cynical.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      No, they mined bitcoins that have a present day virtual value of lots of $, but that they are still holding on to them is an assumption that may prove wrong and that value is there mostly because of the relatively low number of bitcoins that is actively being traded. If those coins are still held by some individual and they decide to unload the BTC will drop like a stone.
      - greenshackle2 10y ago
        > If those coins are still held by some individual and they decide to unload the BTC will drop like a stone. That would be the concern yes. So they won't make a couple of billions, but they'll make a lot, and the rest of us will be left holding worthless bits. I'm sure you can see why that could make someone reluctant to buy into the system, since it sounds plausible, and we don't know for sure the creators are not in fact holding a ton of bitcoins.
      - tchaffee 10y ago
        That's a good clarification. Who knows where all that bitcoin went after it was mined.
- beaconstudios 10y ago
  I agree with your sentiment with regard to the huge number of altcoins that have emerged since bitcoin's arrival, but I still believe there is a core value to cryptocurrencies. However, I disagree with the common statement that that benefit is related to anonymity or privacy. I think the core benefit of cryptocurrencies is in their immutable ownership and exchange - if I buy something with PayPal on eBay I might get a chargeback or PayPal may arbitrarily decide that my transaction was fraudulent. With cryptocurrencies, I don't have to worry about that. The fact that I can store them in a physical location (e.g. a phone app, on a paper wallet in a vault) is immensely useful - I can keep coins in my phone wallet for sending to friends for shared bills, and don't have to think about whether the company that owns my cash is going to make some bizarre policy change or if they are secure enough to prevent hackers manipulating my balance or crashing the company's infrastructure. There's also a sense of ownership that comes with that, similar to owning physical cash. I think there's two innovations beyond bitcoin that are necessary to become properly useful instead of just a tech toy: economic stability, and fast transactions. Also, potentially offline transactions if that's feasible. Economic stability would provide the ability to trust the coins' ability to maintain value rather than using them for fast exchange and cash-out cycles (inflationary) or speculation and investment only (deflationary). Fast transactions for synchronous exchanges, e.g. in-person or business sales funnels. I don't know if Ethereum (or any other altcoin) provides these capabilities, but that's just my 2 satoshis.
  - DennisP 10y ago
    Ethereum has a 14-second block time and plans to shorten it to about four seconds with proof-of-stake. Offline transactions are pretty simple to implement: http://www.blunderingcode.com/a-lightning-network-in-two-pages-of-solidity/ http://www.blunderingcode.com/a-lightning-network-in-two-pag... There are various stablecoin projects too, either backed by someone's offchain assets or using derivative contracts. Personally I think stability will come naturally to the native currency as it gets used more in commerce.
    - beaconstudios 10y ago
      I think bitcoin itself is prone to constant deflation due to the 21-million coin cap and an expanding market. Derivative contracts sounds like an interesting approach to this problem - could you point me to a paper or post on that? I'll definitely have to look into ethereum more deeply - it sounds like it might have the key features I believe are necessary.
- timbowhite 10y ago
  > a system that would immensely benefit whoever came up with that particular currency In Bitcoin's case, Satoshi created the world's first trustless, global digital payment system and distributed it as open source. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when the software was not patented, and free for anyone to use and build with. Could Satoshi hold a bunch of BTC worth over a billion USD? Yup, and I hope he/they do. IMHO the creator(s) deserves all that wealth. > whoever invested early if it ever took off. Is that not the nature of anything that is capable of being an investment?
  - cookiecaper 10y ago
    Bitcoin began as a whitepaper because it's a runaway thought experiment. I'm sure Satoshi would've done things a little differently if he truly expected to become a billionaire from it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a little excessive to assign such heady altruistic qualities to Satoshi as if he/she/they knew ahead of time what bitcoin would become. The infamous "$15k pizza" clearly demonstrates that bitcoin began as a toy and people got a kick out of it when people started treating it as real currency. I really respect bitcoin's implementation as a thought experiment/"let's try this crazy thing" project. I think its use as a permanent basis for a real-world currency and/or a storage/execution platform for programs is misguided. It'd be a shame if we elevated the experimentation of one intelligent person to be elevated into religion and never their mistakes, instead of respecting their intent and leadership and developing improvements that reference the work without memorializing it.
    - timbowhite 10y ago
      > it's a little excessive to assign such heady altruistic qualities to Satoshi as if he/she/they knew ahead of time what bitcoin would become. > It'd be a shame if we elevated the experimentation of one intelligent person to be elevated into religion... Just giving credit where credit is due. If you invented a new open source technology that yielded a market that went from $0 ---> $19B+ in 8 years, then I'd think you'd deserve to be financially rewarded for it, and I may even have some nice things to say about you too. > I really respect bitcoin's implementation as a thought experiment Cool. But Bitcoin would still be a BFD even if no one used it. It's an elegant technological implementation of a decentralized immutable ledger and currency system that doesn't require you to trust someone else with your money when you want to spend it. It still puzzles me how many posters on HN (a forum of creators, engineers, and inventors) disregard its technological achievement. Perhaps the idea that "real money" doesn't have to come from some authority figure is simply too offensive? > I think its use as a permanent basis for a real-world currency and/or a storage/execution platform for programs is misguided. And therein lies one of its best advantages over traditional currency: it's opt-in only, so you don't have to use it if you prefer not to.
- mattnewport 10y ago
  We already have a financial system structured to immensely benefit those who came up with and control currencies. With traditional currencies this is an ongoing benefit, not just a one time return on investment. Governments, banks and other financial institutions that are able to create more units of a currency (by literally and figuratively printing money in the case of governments and by virtually creating money through fractional reserve lending in the case of financial institutions) immensely benefit from their monopoly/oligopoly privileges in that regard.
Anhedonist 10y ago
Look at how M-Pesa is used in Kenya. Token has been available for a single day, of course no one uses it yet. In what way is it exploitative? If it works, which it may well do, it could provide a very valuable service to these people who could greatly benefit from it. They aren't forcing these people to use token, they're trying to create a viable business that provides them a service.
zimzim 10y ago
I can see your point, but, when it comes to the "Internet" it is Ok IMO. It is global already, people everywhere "consuming it". Facebook are "helping the poor people of Africa" now as well as the author hopes to.

Freak_NL 10y ago

> It's all about money at the end of the day, isn't it? I'm still having a hard time seeing any cryptocurrency based application as anything but an attempt to facilitate speculation based on that currency's value. There seem to be so many perverse incentives inherent to this technology that I automatically find any idealistic application of it suspect. Perhaps this is overly cynical, but all cryptocurrencies seem to boil down to a system that would immensely benefit whoever came up with that particular currency (by virtue of having mined all the early blocks before going public or whatever) and whoever invested early if it ever took off.

jacquesm 10y ago
> Perhaps this is overly cynical Probably not, especially not for all the coins started after bitcoin took off. Bitcoin itself may be an exception but without a reliable genesis story it's impossible to know for sure.
- nsebban 10y ago
  AFAIK Bitcoin early-mined blocks were mined and are still owned by its creator. So it's perfectly ok to be cynical about Bitcoin as well. Edit: Some details here https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-fortune-of-satoshi-nakamoto/ https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2013/04/17/the-well-deserved-f...
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    They are owned or their wallet has long ago been lost. It's not all that hard to permanently erase some bitcoins.
- tchaffee 10y ago
  Bitcoin creator(s) hold bitcoin worth a cool couple billion USD. Be very cynical.
  - jacquesm 10y ago
    No, they mined bitcoins that have a present day virtual value of lots of $, but that they are still holding on to them is an assumption that may prove wrong and that value is there mostly because of the relatively low number of bitcoins that is actively being traded. If those coins are still held by some individual and they decide to unload the BTC will drop like a stone.
    - greenshackle2 10y ago
      > If those coins are still held by some individual and they decide to unload the BTC will drop like a stone. That would be the concern yes. So they won't make a couple of billions, but they'll make a lot, and the rest of us will be left holding worthless bits. I'm sure you can see why that could make someone reluctant to buy into the system, since it sounds plausible, and we don't know for sure the creators are not in fact holding a ton of bitcoins.
    - tchaffee 10y ago
      That's a good clarification. Who knows where all that bitcoin went after it was mined.
beaconstudios 10y ago
I agree with your sentiment with regard to the huge number of altcoins that have emerged since bitcoin's arrival, but I still believe there is a core value to cryptocurrencies. However, I disagree with the common statement that that benefit is related to anonymity or privacy. I think the core benefit of cryptocurrencies is in their immutable ownership and exchange - if I buy something with PayPal on eBay I might get a chargeback or PayPal may arbitrarily decide that my transaction was fraudulent. With cryptocurrencies, I don't have to worry about that. The fact that I can store them in a physical location (e.g. a phone app, on a paper wallet in a vault) is immensely useful - I can keep coins in my phone wallet for sending to friends for shared bills, and don't have to think about whether the company that owns my cash is going to make some bizarre policy change or if they are secure enough to prevent hackers manipulating my balance or crashing the company's infrastructure. There's also a sense of ownership that comes with that, similar to owning physical cash. I think there's two innovations beyond bitcoin that are necessary to become properly useful instead of just a tech toy: economic stability, and fast transactions. Also, potentially offline transactions if that's feasible. Economic stability would provide the ability to trust the coins' ability to maintain value rather than using them for fast exchange and cash-out cycles (inflationary) or speculation and investment only (deflationary). Fast transactions for synchronous exchanges, e.g. in-person or business sales funnels. I don't know if Ethereum (or any other altcoin) provides these capabilities, but that's just my 2 satoshis.
- DennisP 10y ago
  Ethereum has a 14-second block time and plans to shorten it to about four seconds with proof-of-stake. Offline transactions are pretty simple to implement: http://www.blunderingcode.com/a-lightning-network-in-two-pages-of-solidity/ http://www.blunderingcode.com/a-lightning-network-in-two-pag... There are various stablecoin projects too, either backed by someone's offchain assets or using derivative contracts. Personally I think stability will come naturally to the native currency as it gets used more in commerce.
  - beaconstudios 10y ago
    I think bitcoin itself is prone to constant deflation due to the 21-million coin cap and an expanding market. Derivative contracts sounds like an interesting approach to this problem - could you point me to a paper or post on that? I'll definitely have to look into ethereum more deeply - it sounds like it might have the key features I believe are necessary.
timbowhite 10y ago
> a system that would immensely benefit whoever came up with that particular currency In Bitcoin's case, Satoshi created the world's first trustless, global digital payment system and distributed it as open source. Maybe it's just me, but that seems like a pretty big deal. Especially when the software was not patented, and free for anyone to use and build with. Could Satoshi hold a bunch of BTC worth over a billion USD? Yup, and I hope he/they do. IMHO the creator(s) deserves all that wealth. > whoever invested early if it ever took off. Is that not the nature of anything that is capable of being an investment?
- cookiecaper 10y ago
  Bitcoin began as a whitepaper because it's a runaway thought experiment. I'm sure Satoshi would've done things a little differently if he truly expected to become a billionaire from it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's a little excessive to assign such heady altruistic qualities to Satoshi as if he/she/they knew ahead of time what bitcoin would become. The infamous "$15k pizza" clearly demonstrates that bitcoin began as a toy and people got a kick out of it when people started treating it as real currency. I really respect bitcoin's implementation as a thought experiment/"let's try this crazy thing" project. I think its use as a permanent basis for a real-world currency and/or a storage/execution platform for programs is misguided. It'd be a shame if we elevated the experimentation of one intelligent person to be elevated into religion and never their mistakes, instead of respecting their intent and leadership and developing improvements that reference the work without memorializing it.
  - timbowhite 10y ago
    > it's a little excessive to assign such heady altruistic qualities to Satoshi as if he/she/they knew ahead of time what bitcoin would become. > It'd be a shame if we elevated the experimentation of one intelligent person to be elevated into religion... Just giving credit where credit is due. If you invented a new open source technology that yielded a market that went from $0 ---> $19B+ in 8 years, then I'd think you'd deserve to be financially rewarded for it, and I may even have some nice things to say about you too. > I really respect bitcoin's implementation as a thought experiment Cool. But Bitcoin would still be a BFD even if no one used it. It's an elegant technological implementation of a decentralized immutable ledger and currency system that doesn't require you to trust someone else with your money when you want to spend it. It still puzzles me how many posters on HN (a forum of creators, engineers, and inventors) disregard its technological achievement. Perhaps the idea that "real money" doesn't have to come from some authority figure is simply too offensive? > I think its use as a permanent basis for a real-world currency and/or a storage/execution platform for programs is misguided. And therein lies one of its best advantages over traditional currency: it's opt-in only, so you don't have to use it if you prefer not to.
mattnewport 10y ago
We already have a financial system structured to immensely benefit those who came up with and control currencies. With traditional currencies this is an ongoing benefit, not just a one time return on investment. Governments, banks and other financial institutions that are able to create more units of a currency (by literally and figuratively printing money in the case of governments and by virtually creating money through fractional reserve lending in the case of financial institutions) immensely benefit from their monopoly/oligopoly privileges in that regard.

Anhedonist 10y ago

Look at how M-Pesa is used in Kenya. Token has been available for a single day, of course no one uses it yet. In what way is it exploitative? If it works, which it may well do, it could provide a very valuable service to these people who could greatly benefit from it. They aren't forcing these people to use token, they're trying to create a viable business that provides them a service.

zimzim 10y ago

I can see your point, but, when it comes to the "Internet" it is Ok IMO. It is global already, people everywhere "consuming it". Facebook are "helping the poor people of Africa" now as well as the author hopes to.