3 ms·

This is an idea that keeps coming back every 2 years or so. While it is enticing to think about, these ideas never manifest into anything. With most decentraliz

by jcfrei 7y ago

This is an idea that keeps coming back every 2 years or so. While it is enticing to think about, these ideas never manifest into anything. With most decentralized projects there usually hasn't been a big enough financial incentive to execute them.

fenwick67 7y ago
The problem is that with no VC funding and no profit model, most decentralized systems rely on volunteers to run servers, give up storage space, spend cpu cycles and/or develop it. Meanwhile Twitter could spend money like crazy for years on end because their goal was cornering the market. They can afford to operate at a loss of millions per year, whereas John Q Developer can spend a few hours a week in his free time. It's a very lopsided situation.
abecedarius 7y ago
I don't disagree, but... when Bitcoin came out I ignored it because of the long history of digital cash schemes that had failed. I assumed the same forces would give it the same fate. If decentralized money can finally find some traction, maybe so can other kinds of networks. Maybe the financial incentives are a part of the context that could change.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Cryptocurrencies are special in that, almost from their very inception, they could be used to make money. There are at least four ways one can make money with them: those with access to cheap electricity and enough starting capital can literally print money out of thin air; they form unregulated exchanges to gamble on; they're very useful for scamming people; they're also useful for laundering money and buying illicit goods. These four things give cryptocurrencies a lot of interest and participants.
kristianc 7y ago
It's more about "What's in it for the user?" when you define user as "the majority of people from whom a device being 'decentralized' is not in and of itself attractive". If there was the demand for this, the VC money would come along soon enough.

by jcfrei 7y ago

fenwick67 7y ago

The problem is that with no VC funding and no profit model, most decentralized systems rely on volunteers to run servers, give up storage space, spend cpu cycles and/or develop it. Meanwhile Twitter could spend money like crazy for years on end because their goal was cornering the market. They can afford to operate at a loss of millions per year, whereas John Q Developer can spend a few hours a week in his free time. It's a very lopsided situation.

abecedarius 7y ago

I don't disagree, but... when Bitcoin came out I ignored it because of the long history of digital cash schemes that had failed. I assumed the same forces would give it the same fate. If decentralized money can finally find some traction, maybe so can other kinds of networks. Maybe the financial incentives are a part of the context that could change.

TeMPOraL 7y ago
Cryptocurrencies are special in that, almost from their very inception, they could be used to make money. There are at least four ways one can make money with them: those with access to cheap electricity and enough starting capital can literally print money out of thin air; they form unregulated exchanges to gamble on; they're very useful for scamming people; they're also useful for laundering money and buying illicit goods. These four things give cryptocurrencies a lot of interest and participants.

kristianc 7y ago

It's more about "What's in it for the user?" when you define user as "the majority of people from whom a device being 'decentralized' is not in and of itself attractive". If there was the demand for this, the VC money would come along soon enough.