4 ms·

A comparison to oil monopolies confirms that he's entirely confused. There is absolutely no historical analog to Google or Facebook. Everything about the inter

A comparison to oil monopolies confirms that he's entirely confused. There is absolutely no historical analog to Google or Facebook. Everything about the internet and computer technology is uncharted territory. The most technical human on earth can't predict what will happen even 5 years in the future. It is safe to predict that Google and Facebook are going to be obsoleted by newer, cheaper, better technology. Google/Facebook operate highly inefficient businesses and that's the weakness that will wipe them both out. No government intervention will be necessary. Hint: #decentralization The big internet risk is the last mile, controlled by Comcast/AT&T. We need a campaign to move the whole country to fiber conduit powered by local internet providers.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
> Hint: #decentralization Any idea how it's going to happen? Historical evidence so far suggests technologies tend to centralize. And it's quite obvious why - centralized systems are generally more efficient in terms of energy use, time and (important for market) money. There's a solid incentive gradient pushing things towards further centralization, and very weak one in the opposite direction. I do not see anything on the horizon that would change it (and no, blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson in just how quickly systems centralize).
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- staunch 9y ago
  "Historical evidence" does not exist! There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now. This is how decentralization really works, it's crazy and wild, and not at all planned by anyone. Even just an evolved version of this, a ten thousand centralized internet currency marketplace, would constitute a decentralized internet currency system. And this is probably the weakest system that could result.
  - Dumbdo 9y ago
    > There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now That may be true, but why does it matter if there's no adoption? As the guy you replied to pointed out, there's no incentive to use a decentralized system for the average user as it's more inefficient and slower by design. I'm not saying that I'm not interested in decentralized systems, I'm simply arguing that there's no incentive to use them except for a few people whose interest in privacy is very high.
- philipodonnell 9y ago
  Don't these things move in cycles? 1. The first computers were huge machines that everyone logged into with thin clients 2. Then the PC era where computing became decentralized and all computing took place on a single machine 3. Then the internet, which went back to the thin clients connecting to large central servers If you believe that the reason for the shift away from decentralization was to enable coordination of multiple PCs so they had access to the same centralized data (for reading or shopping or whatever) then its really not a stretch that distributed consensus algorithms could be a way back to decentralization. > and no, blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson in just how quickly systems centralize Not disagreeing with you on the current state, but I believe that is because the people most engaged right now are the same types who day trade penny stocks and options, i.e., low-information high risk seekers. Many of the structures of the cryptocurrency market seem lifted from a student's textbook about how markets can or should work. I see zero discussion of why different structures like open outcry exchanges and centralized regulatory agencies existed originally and what roles they serve now. Maturity, both in the users and the infrastructure, should help this. I recently had a discussion with a trader-type about why exchanges should exist at all for cryptocurrencies given the volatility cause by a combination of high volume, few market makers, and lots of friction between exchanges. The responses were about price discovery and how would we trade? I don't think they believed me that, as a stock trader, you have almost certainly never traded a stock on an actual exchange and high volatility means its value for economic price discovery is nearly useless. But please resist the urge to conclude that what is happening in the cryptocurrency markets has any bearing on the potential of distributed consensus algorithms.
- thisacctforreal 9y ago
  I think the crux of it is UX and monetization. Both of those are harder to do with a decentralised system, and it's hard to do proper UX without money to bring engineers and designers together.
oriol16 9y ago
Disproving old people arguments is so easy. Just call him confused, outdated, out of place, and you automatically win the argument.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- staunch 9y ago
  You're confused, I didn't just call him confused, I also said why he was confused.
  - 1212312 9y ago
    No you did not. You just made a bunch of assertions.
fibbidd 9y ago
No one can predict the future but you predict the demise of Google and Facebook. Okay. :)
- nradov 9y ago
  It's a fairly safe prediction. Most large companies eventually make a strategic error (like missing a disruptive innovation) that eventually leaves them bankrupt, acquired, or just irrelevant. For hard data look at the Fortune 500 today versus 50 years ago. How many companies have maintained leadership versus how many are just gone? Sure there are always exceptions and Google and Facebook may beat the odds, but that would be a risky bet.
zby 9y ago
I agree with your thesis that we are in an uncharted territory - but predicting that Google and Facebook are going to be obsoleted soon does not follow from this. The problem with social media is that they can control how we think and in particular how we think about them. There might never be a way out of that.
- rock_hard 9y ago
  That would assume bad intent on behalf of said companies. I would caution to use that as a motive for these kind of thought experiments
thisacctforreal 9y ago
Comparison to oil makes sense in that they are extracting a resource at a rate it probably shouldn't be extracted at. In this case the resource is attention. Let's hope the long-term effects of extracting attention for a couple decades is limited :)

TeMPOraL 9y ago

> Hint: #decentralization Any idea how it's going to happen? Historical evidence so far suggests technologies tend to centralize. And it's quite obvious why - centralized systems are generally more efficient in terms of energy use, time and (important for market) money. There's a solid incentive gradient pushing things towards further centralization, and very weak one in the opposite direction. I do not see anything on the horizon that would change it (and no, blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson in just how quickly systems centralize).

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
staunch 9y ago
"Historical evidence" does not exist! There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now. This is how decentralization really works, it's crazy and wild, and not at all planned by anyone. Even just an evolved version of this, a ten thousand centralized internet currency marketplace, would constitute a decentralized internet currency system. And this is probably the weakest system that could result.
- Dumbdo 9y ago
  > There are new decentralized protocols being launched every ~day now That may be true, but why does it matter if there's no adoption? As the guy you replied to pointed out, there's no incentive to use a decentralized system for the average user as it's more inefficient and slower by design. I'm not saying that I'm not interested in decentralized systems, I'm simply arguing that there's no incentive to use them except for a few people whose interest in privacy is very high.
philipodonnell 9y ago
Don't these things move in cycles? 1. The first computers were huge machines that everyone logged into with thin clients 2. Then the PC era where computing became decentralized and all computing took place on a single machine 3. Then the internet, which went back to the thin clients connecting to large central servers If you believe that the reason for the shift away from decentralization was to enable coordination of multiple PCs so they had access to the same centralized data (for reading or shopping or whatever) then its really not a stretch that distributed consensus algorithms could be a way back to decentralization. > and no, blockchains don't count for now - if anything, cryptocurrencies are a lesson in just how quickly systems centralize Not disagreeing with you on the current state, but I believe that is because the people most engaged right now are the same types who day trade penny stocks and options, i.e., low-information high risk seekers. Many of the structures of the cryptocurrency market seem lifted from a student's textbook about how markets can or should work. I see zero discussion of why different structures like open outcry exchanges and centralized regulatory agencies existed originally and what roles they serve now. Maturity, both in the users and the infrastructure, should help this. I recently had a discussion with a trader-type about why exchanges should exist at all for cryptocurrencies given the volatility cause by a combination of high volume, few market makers, and lots of friction between exchanges. The responses were about price discovery and how would we trade? I don't think they believed me that, as a stock trader, you have almost certainly never traded a stock on an actual exchange and high volatility means its value for economic price discovery is nearly useless. But please resist the urge to conclude that what is happening in the cryptocurrency markets has any bearing on the potential of distributed consensus algorithms.
thisacctforreal 9y ago
I think the crux of it is UX and monetization. Both of those are harder to do with a decentralised system, and it's hard to do proper UX without money to bring engineers and designers together.

oriol16 9y ago

Disproving old people arguments is so easy. Just call him confused, outdated, out of place, and you automatically win the argument.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
staunch 9y ago
You're confused, I didn't just call him confused, I also said why he was confused.
- 1212312 9y ago
  No you did not. You just made a bunch of assertions.

fibbidd 9y ago

No one can predict the future but you predict the demise of Google and Facebook. Okay. :)

nradov 9y ago
It's a fairly safe prediction. Most large companies eventually make a strategic error (like missing a disruptive innovation) that eventually leaves them bankrupt, acquired, or just irrelevant. For hard data look at the Fortune 500 today versus 50 years ago. How many companies have maintained leadership versus how many are just gone? Sure there are always exceptions and Google and Facebook may beat the odds, but that would be a risky bet.

zby 9y ago

I agree with your thesis that we are in an uncharted territory - but predicting that Google and Facebook are going to be obsoleted soon does not follow from this. The problem with social media is that they can control how we think and in particular how we think about them. There might never be a way out of that.

rock_hard 9y ago
That would assume bad intent on behalf of said companies. I would caution to use that as a motive for these kind of thought experiments

thisacctforreal 9y ago

Comparison to oil makes sense in that they are extracting a resource at a rate it probably shouldn't be extracted at. In this case the resource is attention. Let's hope the long-term effects of extracting attention for a couple decades is limited :)