3 ms·

> But why though? Because that's generally what really drives adoption, investors willing to fund innovation that adds value. > All the existing models I know

> But why though? Because that's generally what really drives adoption, investors willing to fund innovation that adds value. > All the existing models I know of for making money off developing a blockchain involve some form of centralization. Lets be creative! Build a 'siphon' into the blockchain to capture small bits of each transaction and re-sell that to generate income? Or treat it as a traditional open source project and position yourself as the best implementation because you designed it. There are also different types of centralization that don't necessarily involve interfering with the blockchain. You can decentralize the ledger but centralize the transaction entry. Or centralize the reporting (anyone can make entries but only the authority can verify them, subject to auditing).

kerkeslager 9y ago
> Because that's generally what really drives adoption, investors willing to fund innovation that adds value. I mean, why use blockchain for this when there are appropriate centralized, trusted tools for solving centralized trusted problems. > Build a 'siphon' into the blockchain to capture small bits of each transaction and re-sell that to generate income? That's a centralized siphon (and why would anyone pay you to use this blockchain?). > There are also different types of centralization that don't necessarily involve interfering with the blockchain. You can decentralize the ledger but centralize the transaction entry. Or centralize the reporting (anyone can make entries but only the authority can verify them, subject to auditing). Verification is definitely a key part of blockchain--if you don't have decentralized verification you have a datomic-style log with a decentralized cache. If you centralize that I'd say you don't have a decentralized blockchain any more (this is basically Ripple, or if you're talking about non-coin type logs, git changelogs with signed commits where you only accept commits from entities you trust).
kerkeslager 9y ago
I'll add to my previous response to this post: Bitcoin users fall into basically two camps: 1. Users who want to ride the hype to make money (be it through speculation or through a centralized service). 2. Users who want untrusted decentralization as an ideological benefit. If you're in the first camp, you have no reason to care about decentralization. And frankly, if you're in this camp, you're more likely to be taken by one of the more knowledgeable users in this camp who is running a scam of some sort than to make money yourself. The traditional banking system might be better for you. Not because you're not welcome, but because untrusted decentralization doesn't fit your goals. If you're in the second camp, you have little reason to want adoption beyond a certain point. Obviously adoption increases value and utility of your coins, but it also pushes regulation (i.e. recent Chinese policy changes) and centralization (like SegWit). Large-scale adoption has not been a good thing for ideological proponents of Bitcoin. It sounds like you're in the first camp, and you're not going to understand why the ideas you're posing don't work until you understand the second camp. Bitcoin was created for the goals of the second camp and if those goals aren't your goals, using it is probably counterproductive.

kerkeslager 9y ago

> Because that's generally what really drives adoption, investors willing to fund innovation that adds value. I mean, why use blockchain for this when there are appropriate centralized, trusted tools for solving centralized trusted problems. > Build a 'siphon' into the blockchain to capture small bits of each transaction and re-sell that to generate income? That's a centralized siphon (and why would anyone pay you to use this blockchain?). > There are also different types of centralization that don't necessarily involve interfering with the blockchain. You can decentralize the ledger but centralize the transaction entry. Or centralize the reporting (anyone can make entries but only the authority can verify them, subject to auditing). Verification is definitely a key part of blockchain--if you don't have decentralized verification you have a datomic-style log with a decentralized cache. If you centralize that I'd say you don't have a decentralized blockchain any more (this is basically Ripple, or if you're talking about non-coin type logs, git changelogs with signed commits where you only accept commits from entities you trust).

kerkeslager 9y ago

I'll add to my previous response to this post: Bitcoin users fall into basically two camps: 1. Users who want to ride the hype to make money (be it through speculation or through a centralized service). 2. Users who want untrusted decentralization as an ideological benefit. If you're in the first camp, you have no reason to care about decentralization. And frankly, if you're in this camp, you're more likely to be taken by one of the more knowledgeable users in this camp who is running a scam of some sort than to make money yourself. The traditional banking system might be better for you. Not because you're not welcome, but because untrusted decentralization doesn't fit your goals. If you're in the second camp, you have little reason to want adoption beyond a certain point. Obviously adoption increases value and utility of your coins, but it also pushes regulation (i.e. recent Chinese policy changes) and centralization (like SegWit). Large-scale adoption has not been a good thing for ideological proponents of Bitcoin. It sounds like you're in the first camp, and you're not going to understand why the ideas you're posing don't work until you understand the second camp. Bitcoin was created for the goals of the second camp and if those goals aren't your goals, using it is probably counterproductive.