4 ms·

>What's the value of the in-app currency being a cryptocurrency In a word -- decentralization -- is the key difference between a virtual currency described by

by s_dev 9y ago

>What's the value of the in-app currency being a cryptocurrency In a word -- decentralization -- is the key difference between a virtual currency described by some SQL tables and an API and one described by a blockchain. A gov if it wants can take down a server if it is physically hosted in that country. A blockchain unless you've gargantuan CPU power is nigh on impossible to take down.

CPLX 9y ago
It's not decentralized if one organization owns 52% of it.
- vernon99 9y ago
  Not necessarily. This is actually orthogonal to decentralization question. Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation.
  - edraferi 9y ago
    I agree. It's more like they're retaining control of the money supply like a central bank does. It give you the power to indirectly influence the price / exchange rate of the currency, but you're not involved with every transaction.
    - hndamien 9y ago
      Except that you are with Proof of Stake.
  - maksimum 9y ago
    > Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation Exactly, if someone with >50% power can essentially double spend it makes the currency as a whole almost worthless. As a result it's very much in the creator's interest to either not have >50% or to come up with a distributed consensus algorithm where a majority party can't double spend (very hard).
jmcqk6 9y ago
>In a word -- decentralization... That is the difference, but what is the value in that? You're making things much more complicated and for what - especially for an in-app currency.
- s_dev 9y ago
  Redundancy -- you don't need to keep backups of a blockchain but you do if everything is centralized in a single place. It depends on the value of the backups I guess and the total cost involved. If you're looking at store of value there needs to be backups of backups. I see room for both depending on the needs of the business. It's just a trade off -- the blockchain is inherently more stable and secure than a server for certain purposes and server is far faster and cheaper depending on how you use it.

by s_dev 9y ago

CPLX 9y ago

It's not decentralized if one organization owns 52% of it.

vernon99 9y ago
Not necessarily. This is actually orthogonal to decentralization question. Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation.
- edraferi 9y ago
  I agree. It's more like they're retaining control of the money supply like a central bank does. It give you the power to indirectly influence the price / exchange rate of the currency, but you're not involved with every transaction.
  - hndamien 9y ago
    Except that you are with Proof of Stake.
- maksimum 9y ago
  > Very much depends on their proof of stake implementation Exactly, if someone with >50% power can essentially double spend it makes the currency as a whole almost worthless. As a result it's very much in the creator's interest to either not have >50% or to come up with a distributed consensus algorithm where a majority party can't double spend (very hard).

jmcqk6 9y ago

>In a word -- decentralization... That is the difference, but what is the value in that? You're making things much more complicated and for what - especially for an in-app currency.

s_dev 9y ago
Redundancy -- you don't need to keep backups of a blockchain but you do if everything is centralized in a single place. It depends on the value of the backups I guess and the total cost involved. If you're looking at store of value there needs to be backups of backups. I see room for both depending on the needs of the business. It's just a trade off -- the blockchain is inherently more stable and secure than a server for certain purposes and server is far faster and cheaper depending on how you use it.