5 ms·

The defense is to point out some genuinely useful work going on in the space that doesn't revolve around speculation.

by api 7y ago

michaelsbradley 7y ago
How about pure development work to build tools that can be used to experiment with and build atop decentralized technologies such as IPFS and Ethereum blockchain, etc.? https://embark.status.im/ https://embark.status.im/ https://github.com/embark-framework/embark https://github.com/embark-framework/embark
- k__ 7y ago
  IPFS seems to solve an actual problem without too much overhead tho...
  - michaelsbradley 7y ago
    See: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/4405 https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/4405.
xur17 7y ago
* Bitcoin's lightning network * Stable coins (Dai, USDC, etc) * What Keybase just built (much easier way to manage keys for wallets) * Makerdao's decentralized loan system The first 2 enable you to transfer value over the internet in a cheap and non-revokable way (internet cash). The third one simplifies wallet management for the first two. The last one opens up a bunch of new opportunities for borrowing money without having to trust your counterparty. All of this enables people to transfer value without any middlemen. And separate from this, projects like IPFS / Filecoin (if they actually work) would let you store data without using a centralized third party.
- drawnwren 7y ago
  I agree that crypto could be valuable. But, (1) the lightning network has been repeatedly attacked as unworkable trash and (2) there needs to be a reason to make crypto transactions other than drugs or vaguely crypto-anarchist philosophy. (b) Tether's recent scandal has made all stable coins fairly suspect. (d) The makerdao system has some pretty serious problems. High liquidation rates and skyrocketing fees both come up. If anything, crypto has taught us (through the plethora of 2018/19 crypto scams) that revokability is a feature of transactions that is _valuable_. I'd say my biggest takeaways from crypto, currently, are that there is not such thing as 'without having to trust the other party' and that all of the middlemen in the current financial system do provide more value than just taking a cut (while that value is probably not proportional to the cut that they take). All that said, I'm still optimistic on crypto. However, I think it's unrealistic to expect it to replace a significant part of the web in its current form.
  - RustyRussell 7y ago
    > (1) the lightning network has been repeatedly attacked as unworkable trash [ Disclosure: I work on the lightning specification and one of the implementations ] I'm sure it has been attacked (because "cryptos, bro"), I'm disappointed that it made you dismiss it. FWIW, I switched from Linux Kernel development to developing Lightning after almost 20 years: I find it ambitious, high-potential and fascinating, as well as challenging.
    - drawnwren 7y ago
      I don't mean to attack you. It's just that there is a large gap between well-engineered and easy to use. I am 100% certain you're a better developer than I, and that lightning is not a result of poor engineering. But if a layman can't pick it up and use it in under 5 minutes, it's unworkable (if you're targeting laymen). Crypto is full of genius engineers, and product folks, but I think there is (and always has been) a usability crisis. Thanks for your work on both Linux and Lightning. I look forward to the day you can point to this comment on HN as being ridiculously dated.
      - 7y ago
- uncletammy 7y ago
  Sorry but calling Bitcoin's Lightning network "internet cash" is incredibly misleading. Bitcoin is "internet cash". At least it used to be. Bitcoin's version of the lightning network is a Rube Goldberg machine bolted onto a payment network and dressed up to look like a scaling solution. Lightning network is a super cool technology but BTC's implementation of it suffers from crippling flaws that make it useless for Lightning's most promising use cases. Lightning network was designed to be a micropayment solution built on top of a low-fee base layer. It requires that low-fee base layer to deliver on it's promises. Since it's been built on a high-fee base layer (BTC), transaction routing is now a problem that can only be solved by sending your lightning payment through a large and highly connected lightning node and never closing your payment channels (because re-opening them costs too much). This effectively eliminates the p2p aspect that is required for "lightning bitcoin" to function as cash. Instead, BTC lightning network has to function more like traditional banks where the node operator is the bank and the payment channel is the user's account. The transactions are like really fast SWIFT/ACH transfers except they only go through if the sender's account meets the necessary liquidity constraints. Those liquidity constraints actually make btc lightning transactions more like purchases made using a secured/prepaid credit card because you must have money tied up so that you can spend money. And like a bank, the lightning node gets to decide if they want to route your transaction to it's final destination. It's also incredibly likely ( and arguably confirmed based on https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20... ) that BTC lightning nodes will be subject to the same rules and regulations as a traditional bank. If so, it's yet another centralizing force on BTC's version of Lightning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking banks here. Banks are useful and KYC/AML are often good things. I'm just saying, "lightning btc" couldn't be further from cash.
ChainOfFools 7y ago
I would add to that some explanation as to why the proposed decentralization of custody, control and leverage inherent in any cryptocurrency proposition should be expected to remain stable indefinitely rather than collapse into a conventional, de facto centralized model under the inexorable pressure of competition to derive profit from such a system
ericflo 7y ago
I have a bunch of data backed up on the Sia file storage marketplace. Works fine for that purpose for me today.
fourstar 7y ago
You just described literally anything new.

The defense is to point out some genuinely useful work going on in the space that doesn't revolve around speculation.

by api 7y ago

The defense is to point out some genuinely useful work going on in the space that doesn't revolve around speculation.

How about pure development work to build tools that can be used to experiment with and build atop decentralized technologies such as IPFS and Ethereum blockchain, etc.? https://embark.status.im/ https://embark.status.im/ https://github.com/embark-framework/embark https://github.com/embark-framework/embark

k__ 7y ago
IPFS seems to solve an actual problem without too much overhead tho...
- michaelsbradley 7y ago
  See: https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/4405 https://github.com/MetaMask/metamask-extension/pull/4405.

xur17 7y ago

* Bitcoin's lightning network * Stable coins (Dai, USDC, etc) * What Keybase just built (much easier way to manage keys for wallets) * Makerdao's decentralized loan system The first 2 enable you to transfer value over the internet in a cheap and non-revokable way (internet cash). The third one simplifies wallet management for the first two. The last one opens up a bunch of new opportunities for borrowing money without having to trust your counterparty. All of this enables people to transfer value without any middlemen. And separate from this, projects like IPFS / Filecoin (if they actually work) would let you store data without using a centralized third party.

drawnwren 7y ago
I agree that crypto could be valuable. But, (1) the lightning network has been repeatedly attacked as unworkable trash and (2) there needs to be a reason to make crypto transactions other than drugs or vaguely crypto-anarchist philosophy. (b) Tether's recent scandal has made all stable coins fairly suspect. (d) The makerdao system has some pretty serious problems. High liquidation rates and skyrocketing fees both come up. If anything, crypto has taught us (through the plethora of 2018/19 crypto scams) that revokability is a feature of transactions that is _valuable_. I'd say my biggest takeaways from crypto, currently, are that there is not such thing as 'without having to trust the other party' and that all of the middlemen in the current financial system do provide more value than just taking a cut (while that value is probably not proportional to the cut that they take). All that said, I'm still optimistic on crypto. However, I think it's unrealistic to expect it to replace a significant part of the web in its current form.
- RustyRussell 7y ago
  > (1) the lightning network has been repeatedly attacked as unworkable trash [ Disclosure: I work on the lightning specification and one of the implementations ] I'm sure it has been attacked (because "cryptos, bro"), I'm disappointed that it made you dismiss it. FWIW, I switched from Linux Kernel development to developing Lightning after almost 20 years: I find it ambitious, high-potential and fascinating, as well as challenging.
  - drawnwren 7y ago
    I don't mean to attack you. It's just that there is a large gap between well-engineered and easy to use. I am 100% certain you're a better developer than I, and that lightning is not a result of poor engineering. But if a layman can't pick it up and use it in under 5 minutes, it's unworkable (if you're targeting laymen). Crypto is full of genius engineers, and product folks, but I think there is (and always has been) a usability crisis. Thanks for your work on both Linux and Lightning. I look forward to the day you can point to this comment on HN as being ridiculously dated.
    - 7y ago
uncletammy 7y ago
Sorry but calling Bitcoin's Lightning network "internet cash" is incredibly misleading. Bitcoin is "internet cash". At least it used to be. Bitcoin's version of the lightning network is a Rube Goldberg machine bolted onto a payment network and dressed up to look like a scaling solution. Lightning network is a super cool technology but BTC's implementation of it suffers from crippling flaws that make it useless for Lightning's most promising use cases. Lightning network was designed to be a micropayment solution built on top of a low-fee base layer. It requires that low-fee base layer to deliver on it's promises. Since it's been built on a high-fee base layer (BTC), transaction routing is now a problem that can only be solved by sending your lightning payment through a large and highly connected lightning node and never closing your payment channels (because re-opening them costs too much). This effectively eliminates the p2p aspect that is required for "lightning bitcoin" to function as cash. Instead, BTC lightning network has to function more like traditional banks where the node operator is the bank and the payment channel is the user's account. The transactions are like really fast SWIFT/ACH transfers except they only go through if the sender's account meets the necessary liquidity constraints. Those liquidity constraints actually make btc lightning transactions more like purchases made using a secured/prepaid credit card because you must have money tied up so that you can spend money. And like a bank, the lightning node gets to decide if they want to route your transaction to it's final destination. It's also incredibly likely ( and arguably confirmed based on https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20Guidance%20CVC%20FINAL%20508.pdf https://www.fincen.gov/sites/default/files/2019-05/FinCEN%20... ) that BTC lightning nodes will be subject to the same rules and regulations as a traditional bank. If so, it's yet another centralizing force on BTC's version of Lightning. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking banks here. Banks are useful and KYC/AML are often good things. I'm just saying, "lightning btc" couldn't be further from cash.

ChainOfFools 7y ago

I would add to that some explanation as to why the proposed decentralization of custody, control and leverage inherent in any cryptocurrency proposition should be expected to remain stable indefinitely rather than collapse into a conventional, de facto centralized model under the inexorable pressure of competition to derive profit from such a system

ericflo 7y ago

I have a bunch of data backed up on the Sia file storage marketplace. Works fine for that purpose for me today.

fourstar 7y ago

You just described literally anything new.