3 ms·

1. You've always been able to crowdsource if you want to go through legal hoops. 2. I'm not sure how you can say Filecoin's token is tracking the non-existent

1. You've always been able to crowdsource if you want to go through legal hoops. 2. I'm not sure how you can say Filecoin's token is tracking the non-existent network. Even Ethereum is a bad example. All the Enterprise Ether announcements will use a private implementation of Ethereum. So how is that value accruing in ETH, other than people getting confused by misleading PR and thinking banks are actually going to be transacting on the public Ethereum chain so they should buy ETH? 3. What do you mean if "TCP/IP" would capture money for every request? Why not UTF-8 or ASCII capturing value for every character written? InternetBugBounty seems like a very bad example. Their examples of "The Internet" bugs are issues in Bash, TLS, and ImageMagick -- all very much not TCP/IP. That's like saying BTC's market cap should have prevented Ethereum's DAO bug. Not trying to be mean, I just don't see how this makes any sense.

mhluongo 9y ago
To expand on point 3- I think finding a "natural" business model for protocol development is pretty fantastic. HTTP needs work, and we've known it for years. But when we tried to fix it... well, mostly large corporations with skewed incentives are driving the effort, so what you'd expect happens. Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure. Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.
- wbl 9y ago
  What incentive did Google have that skewed HTTP2 vs smaller sites?
- the_stc 9y ago
  Again, if TCP/IP captured money, how would that fund HTTP - they are not related (ETH doesn't fund random tokens on top of the Ethereum blockchain, so why would the TCP/IP people getting money give it to other protocols?). There is already enough lock-in with protocols due to inertia and politics. Adding money to it seems like it wouldn't improve things. If anything, it seems like it'd only make things worse. BitTorrent got money and that didn't seem to help them very much. Tokens offer a different path, mostly because you can buy and sell them so freely. It's link pink sheets on steroids.
  - mhluongo 9y ago
    I wasn't suggesting TCP/IP funding should be used to fund HTTP, I was just using HTTP as an example. Though there is something interesting there- protocols with funding sharing with others built atop to increase network effects.
- icebraining 9y ago
  I doubt protocol development is hampered by funding. The real impediment is adoption, and you can't escape the large corporations there: if Chrome and Edge and Safari don't accept your HTTP changes, what's the point?

mhluongo 9y ago

To expand on point 3- I think finding a "natural" business model for protocol development is pretty fantastic. HTTP needs work, and we've known it for years. But when we tried to fix it... well, mostly large corporations with skewed incentives are driving the effort, so what you'd expect happens. Tokens offer a different path to funding important infrastructure. Right now, tokens clearly aren't doing a great job tracking underlying utility, so I won't make that claim. I do think that will improve as the space matures though.

wbl 9y ago
What incentive did Google have that skewed HTTP2 vs smaller sites?
the_stc 9y ago
Again, if TCP/IP captured money, how would that fund HTTP - they are not related (ETH doesn't fund random tokens on top of the Ethereum blockchain, so why would the TCP/IP people getting money give it to other protocols?). There is already enough lock-in with protocols due to inertia and politics. Adding money to it seems like it wouldn't improve things. If anything, it seems like it'd only make things worse. BitTorrent got money and that didn't seem to help them very much. Tokens offer a different path, mostly because you can buy and sell them so freely. It's link pink sheets on steroids.
- mhluongo 9y ago
  I wasn't suggesting TCP/IP funding should be used to fund HTTP, I was just using HTTP as an example. Though there is something interesting there- protocols with funding sharing with others built atop to increase network effects.
icebraining 9y ago
I doubt protocol development is hampered by funding. The real impediment is adoption, and you can't escape the large corporations there: if Chrome and Edge and Safari don't accept your HTTP changes, what's the point?