9 ms·

> And since these systems are open rather than proprietary, we’ll see applications bigger than Facebook. I think this vastly overestimates how much the vast ma

> And since these systems are open rather than proprietary, we’ll see applications bigger than Facebook. I think this vastly overestimates how much the vast majority of people care about this

free2rhyme214 9y ago
I think you're underestimating how big the cryptocurrency market will be.
- pgodzin 9y ago
  In terms of market size sure, in terms of active users, I'm skeptical. Best case is that the decentralization is seamless and creates no friction. There are already closed protocols that enable almost everything you would be able to do with that. Anything else would require using the cryptocurrency as a store of value, which you will NEVER get 2 billion people to buy into.
pdog 9y ago
Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems. Look at email (based on SMTP) and the internet (based on TCP/IP). This statement only expects a successful new protocol to follow the same trend.
- monocasa 9y ago
  I mean, Diaspora has an open protocol. How well did that take off?
  - nannal 9y ago
    What's a Diaspora?
- r00fus 9y ago
  Selection/survivor bias. For each SMTP there are probably 100 open protocols that are by the roadside.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - FabHK 9y ago
    Yes. Let's look at more examples: Chat: Open: XMPP, Jabber, Adium, Tox, Jitsi. Closed: WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Apple Messages, Line, Skype, WeChat. Social: Open: ? pump.io, Diaspora? Closed: Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn. App Stores: Open: F-Droid. Closed: Apple App Store, Google Play Authentication: Open: FreeOTP. Closed: Authy, Google Authenticator Office: Open: LibreOffice. Closed: Microsoft Office. Cloud: Open: ? buddycloud, GitLab. Closed: iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive. OS: Open: Unixes. Closed: OS X, Windows Browsers: Open: Firefox. Closed: Chrome, Safari, IE Maps: Open: OpenStreetMap. Closed: Google maps, Apple maps I realise these are mostly not "protocols" (depending on what layer we're talking about). Nevertheless, can hardly say that "Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems".
    - mintplant 9y ago
      This is a Bad Comment that tries to disguise itself as a Good Comment by going for quantity over quality. Cherry picking, misinformation, and apples-and-oranges comparisons can all be found here. For example: > Google Authenticator ...is open source and based on open standards. > Chrome Chromium > Safari WebKit (originally derived from KHTML) > Cloud: Open: ? buddycloud, GitLab. Closed: iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive. The open and closed products here aren't even in the same spaces.
      - hdhzy 9y ago
        Google Authenticator, the one that you download from Play Store, is not open source: > These apps are not on the app stores, and their code has diverged from what's in the app stores, so patches here won't necessarily show up in those versions. Source: https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/master/R...
    - MysticFear 9y ago
      True, but the developers of those open protocols have no or little financial incentive for the success of their standard. Traditionally closed protocols had the financial incentive. Blockchains are different in that way.
- daxfohl 9y ago
  But facebook already uses TCP/IP. What does blockchain add?
headcanon 9y ago
I think a lot of the applications that they talk about will be built in such a way that people won't really know or care about the fact that its decentralized, or exists on a blockchain. Much in the same way that a lot of people don't use the "internet" but use Facebook every day. They don't care about the underlying tech, they just want to see funny pics or talk to their grandma. Right now, cryptocurrencies are in the "Usenet" stage, where most of the users are tech enthusiasts. Eventually they may get to "Facebook" stage, and you're right, most users won't care about blockchain, but they'll still use it.
- lern_too_spel 9y ago
  It will cost an order of magnitude more to run the app on the blockchain, just like it costs an order of magnitude more to have a decentralized ledger instead of a centralized ledger for accounts. There remains no useful application that justifies the cost, aside from malware monetization and other illegal transactions.
  - Jabanga 9y ago
    It's a lot less costly to transfer money with a distributed blockchain, to give you just one counter example.
    - lern_too_spel 9y ago
      It currently costs more than $2 to transfer Bitcoins. It's free to transfer money to people in the same country off the blockchain, and the transfer confirm is faster.
      - Jabanga 9y ago
        $2 is less than the cost of an international wire transfer, especially if you live in a country where people are restricted by laws from making such transfers. But in any case, Bitcoin has reached its transaction capacity and transaction slots are scarce. Simple payment transactions on Ethereum currently cost less than $0.05 on average.
crispyambulance 9y ago
Yeah, its also a shame that all these crypto-currencies don't seem to be interested in the idea of money to exchange goods and services but instead seem to be all about volatile financial thrill-rides. Is that what the creators think is the central focus of currency? Crypto-currency will only "get big" when it becomes nice and boring.
zeroxfe 9y ago
The vast majority of people don't care about TCP/IP either, but still use Facebook. (Blockchains are similarly low-level infrastructure, that enable all kinds of higher-level user applications.)
- pgodzin 9y ago
  But what would make 2B people use an open blockchain-based technology vs a closed proprietary one?
  - daxfohl 9y ago
    A closed proprietary layer on top of it.
    - SubiculumCode 9y ago
      Then, what are the advantages to the firm?
      - daxfohl 9y ago
        My point exactly.
    - KGIII 9y ago
      If I am reading you correctly, I disagre. I suspect you couldn't even find two billion people who care if the source is open. I love FOSS. I donate to EFF. I have met people who are heavily involved. I am in the minority. If people were going to care about it being open source, the computer realm would probably much different. People just don't care, and it's not like we've been shy about telling folks about its benefits. Most folks are happy enough with their closed source. No evidence suggests that this is going to change. FOSS has been more than adequate, for most users, for a long time. There is no evidence that this year will be the year of Linux on the desktop, for example.
      - deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]

> And since these systems are open rather than proprietary, we’ll see applications bigger than Facebook. I think this vastly overestimates how much the vast majority of people care about this

free2rhyme214 9y ago

I think you're underestimating how big the cryptocurrency market will be.

pgodzin 9y ago
In terms of market size sure, in terms of active users, I'm skeptical. Best case is that the decentralization is seamless and creates no friction. There are already closed protocols that enable almost everything you would be able to do with that. Anything else would require using the cryptocurrency as a store of value, which you will NEVER get 2 billion people to buy into.

pdog 9y ago

Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems. Look at email (based on SMTP) and the internet (based on TCP/IP). This statement only expects a successful new protocol to follow the same trend.

monocasa 9y ago
I mean, Diaspora has an open protocol. How well did that take off?
- nannal 9y ago
  What's a Diaspora?
r00fus 9y ago
Selection/survivor bias. For each SMTP there are probably 100 open protocols that are by the roadside.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- FabHK 9y ago
  Yes. Let's look at more examples: Chat: Open: XMPP, Jabber, Adium, Tox, Jitsi. Closed: WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Apple Messages, Line, Skype, WeChat. Social: Open: ? pump.io, Diaspora? Closed: Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn. App Stores: Open: F-Droid. Closed: Apple App Store, Google Play Authentication: Open: FreeOTP. Closed: Authy, Google Authenticator Office: Open: LibreOffice. Closed: Microsoft Office. Cloud: Open: ? buddycloud, GitLab. Closed: iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive. OS: Open: Unixes. Closed: OS X, Windows Browsers: Open: Firefox. Closed: Chrome, Safari, IE Maps: Open: OpenStreetMap. Closed: Google maps, Apple maps I realise these are mostly not "protocols" (depending on what layer we're talking about). Nevertheless, can hardly say that "Open protocols are already much larger than closed systems".
  - mintplant 9y ago
    This is a Bad Comment that tries to disguise itself as a Good Comment by going for quantity over quality. Cherry picking, misinformation, and apples-and-oranges comparisons can all be found here. For example: > Google Authenticator ...is open source and based on open standards. > Chrome Chromium > Safari WebKit (originally derived from KHTML) > Cloud: Open: ? buddycloud, GitLab. Closed: iCloud, Dropbox, Google Drive, Microsoft OneDrive. The open and closed products here aren't even in the same spaces.
    - hdhzy 9y ago
      Google Authenticator, the one that you download from Play Store, is not open source: > These apps are not on the app stores, and their code has diverged from what's in the app stores, so patches here won't necessarily show up in those versions. Source: https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/master/README.md https://github.com/google/google-authenticator/blob/master/R...
  - MysticFear 9y ago
    True, but the developers of those open protocols have no or little financial incentive for the success of their standard. Traditionally closed protocols had the financial incentive. Blockchains are different in that way.
daxfohl 9y ago
But facebook already uses TCP/IP. What does blockchain add?

headcanon 9y ago

I think a lot of the applications that they talk about will be built in such a way that people won't really know or care about the fact that its decentralized, or exists on a blockchain. Much in the same way that a lot of people don't use the "internet" but use Facebook every day. They don't care about the underlying tech, they just want to see funny pics or talk to their grandma. Right now, cryptocurrencies are in the "Usenet" stage, where most of the users are tech enthusiasts. Eventually they may get to "Facebook" stage, and you're right, most users won't care about blockchain, but they'll still use it.

lern_too_spel 9y ago
It will cost an order of magnitude more to run the app on the blockchain, just like it costs an order of magnitude more to have a decentralized ledger instead of a centralized ledger for accounts. There remains no useful application that justifies the cost, aside from malware monetization and other illegal transactions.
- Jabanga 9y ago
  It's a lot less costly to transfer money with a distributed blockchain, to give you just one counter example.
  - lern_too_spel 9y ago
    It currently costs more than $2 to transfer Bitcoins. It's free to transfer money to people in the same country off the blockchain, and the transfer confirm is faster.
    - Jabanga 9y ago
      $2 is less than the cost of an international wire transfer, especially if you live in a country where people are restricted by laws from making such transfers. But in any case, Bitcoin has reached its transaction capacity and transaction slots are scarce. Simple payment transactions on Ethereum currently cost less than $0.05 on average.

crispyambulance 9y ago

Yeah, its also a shame that all these crypto-currencies don't seem to be interested in the idea of money to exchange goods and services but instead seem to be all about volatile financial thrill-rides. Is that what the creators think is the central focus of currency? Crypto-currency will only "get big" when it becomes nice and boring.

zeroxfe 9y ago

The vast majority of people don't care about TCP/IP either, but still use Facebook. (Blockchains are similarly low-level infrastructure, that enable all kinds of higher-level user applications.)

pgodzin 9y ago
But what would make 2B people use an open blockchain-based technology vs a closed proprietary one?
- daxfohl 9y ago
  A closed proprietary layer on top of it.
  - SubiculumCode 9y ago
    Then, what are the advantages to the firm?
    - daxfohl 9y ago
      My point exactly.
  - KGIII 9y ago
    If I am reading you correctly, I disagre. I suspect you couldn't even find two billion people who care if the source is open. I love FOSS. I donate to EFF. I have met people who are heavily involved. I am in the minority. If people were going to care about it being open source, the computer realm would probably much different. People just don't care, and it's not like we've been shy about telling folks about its benefits. Most folks are happy enough with their closed source. No evidence suggests that this is going to change. FOSS has been more than adequate, for most users, for a long time. There is no evidence that this year will be the year of Linux on the desktop, for example.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]