6 ms·

> Exchanging data for value will be normal and young people will ask how it ever could work without that. How is this different from using a credit card to e.g

> Exchanging data for value will be normal and young people will ask how it ever could work without that. How is this different from using a credit card to e.g. purchase a streaming movie? Is it just more seamless? Or does the fact that there isn't a centralized bank behind the transaction somehow significant for the consumer or business? (I'm really just trying to understand this btw) > Kids will aks if it's true that back in the days people who inserted data into the internet had to pay for it and not the people who consumed the data. If I understand correctly, the current situation is that there are free services where you can upload/insert data, free services where you can download/consume—and there are paid services for both too. Could you elaborate on what the difference would be there? Anyone who creates/hosts content does so for free, and the people who consume it always pay?

seibelj 7y ago
Legacy payments network is a dumpster fire. It works but just barely. Crypto is much cleaner and will take it over eventually, give it time.
- pavlov 7y ago
  This is an example of what I meant by speculating on a growth story. 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. 2019 cryptocurrency lets you pay for something, sort of, not really, but will be very clean one day — never mind that millions are already paying for things and sending money because “it’s a dumpster fire”.
  - mopsi 7y ago
    > 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. You could. There were phones and snail mail after all, weren't there? They were slow an expensive just like wire transfers between US and EU bank accounts are: 2-3 workdays and a $35-45 fee to move around a few bytes in existing financial messaging systems. Pure madness.
    - pavlov 7y ago
      Wire transfers between US and EU take a few hours to clear and cost $25. I send them all the time. In Europe, transfers between all banks are becoming instantaneous starting Jan 2020: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-instant-credit-transfer https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-insta... The cost is pennies. No need for a crypto-anything solution.
      - noxer 7y ago
        US <-> EU is a corridor with huge volume the legacy systems are therefore very very optimized for this. Inside EU Tx are basically inside the same system which is centralized and updating balances is super simple cheap and fast. Try to send some USD to Mexico or something instead. Also a Tx taking hours and costing 25 bucks is absolutely not going to allow the Internet of Value to show it's possibilities. It may be acceptable to buy something and let it be ship to you. but what about services? instant services how could they be paid with such a system. Watch the youtube video linked above if you want to get an idea of the IoV. It's on a completely different scale. Value streaming a fraction of a cent at a time. Instant and basically free.
        pavlov 7y ago
        Like millions of people, I buy instant services on the Internet all the time using those nasty legacy "dumpster fire" systems. They even provide a nice built-in feature called "chargeback" in case the service isn't what I expected. Cryptocurrencies don't seem to care about that part of customer experience at all. (Btw, when you say "just watch this YouTube video about an amazing business opportunity", what I hear is: "I believe you're a sucker".)
        noxer 7y ago
        If you don't want to watch the video I suggested but then argue with semi valid arguments because you have not seen the video, I kinda feel like I should just not reply anymore which is exactly what I will do after this post. >Cryptocurrencies don't seem to care about that part of customer experience at all. The idea which again is described in the video which you don't want to watch makes "chargebacks" something you do not need in many cases. The data/value streaming just stops if one side stops hence you don't need any agreement or contract. You pay for what you get and if you stop paying the other will stop as well. Some services obviously don't work that way and there will always be use for a third party middleman who takes the risk, guaranties service/money for both sides. The idea isn't to destroy all the business agreements that exists and then start them all again but use some fancy new way to pay each-other that does the exact same thing just differently. The idea is that a whole new sector of services will become possible because of that new tech. I don't feel the need to convince you into anything I just think you aren't aware of the fundamental changes the new tech can bring because all you saw is Bitcoin. I suggested the video purely because he explains the vision of the IoV very accurate. He's not gonna tell you to buy shitcoin XY or trow money into companies that try to build stuff with that new tech. If you watch it and think that this all will never happen, that's fine who knows. At least we talk about the same Idea then. Here is the link again https://youtu.be/Lxqz_NlX3GI https://youtu.be/Lxqz_NlX3GI Should be quite interesting for anyone in the tech/IT space even if one completely disagrees with his vision.
- perl4ever 7y ago
  Cryptocurrency seems like the inverse of the internet revolution to me. Internetworking realized the vast potential of all the computers in the world. They could do so much more if talking to each other. Crypto via "proof of work" takes all the unused computing capacity everywhere and creates an incentive to waste it. What it seems like to me is a hybrid virus that uses both human minds and machines to spread and suck up resources.
  - noxer 7y ago
    BTC is 10 years old. Tech has come along way since then. Proof of work clearly isn't the revolution. There is no need to waist energy to make blockchains/DLT work. Just like light doesn't have to be produced by turning 95% of the energy into heat. Inventions never start with the final product. But there will always be people who prefer the first product.
    - perl4ever 7y ago
      I mean, if someone says that (a) proof of work is the only viable solution and all others have flaws you can't get around, (which I have noticed people claiming) and (b) BTC is still the most successful cryptocurrency, which people are not abandoning, what's your response? You just made a string of assertions without explanation, so why do you think these things?
      - noxer 7y ago
        Well (a) is simply wrong. Proof of works has flaws (energy wasting/tends to centralize) which can not be fixed. But others have fixed these flaws by not using PoW. Yes there are people telling that PoW and Bitcoin is the best and all other systems are flawed. They are called Bitcoin Maxis, their arguments usefully fall flat when you apply logic. They don't even agree with each other about which Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin. >BTC is still the most successful cryptocurrency How do you measure success of a cryptocurrency? Also being the first gives huge advantage for "success". Like Whatsapp which is probably the most successful instant messenger but does that mean it's the best? It takes time to dethrone something like Whatsapp or Bitcoin just having the better tech isn't enough to instantly make everyone switch. >You just made a string of assertions without explanation, so why do you think these things? You have any specific question? I don't really know what I should explain. If you are interested in alternatives to PoW you should lookup XRPL Consensus (Federated Byzantine agreement) a variant of this is also uses by the Stellar Consensus Protocol. Then there is PoS which is the most known alternative. DPoS is building on top of that idea. Then there is PoWeight, Tangle, Hashgraph and some other less popular and/or not (yet) working ideas/theories.
noxer 7y ago
In short credit cards do not move value at all. You authorize payment instructions. Which in turn leads to balances being adjusted. It's basically a debt transaction instead of a value transaction. It has several advantages like that banks can adjust balances for a specific time with many parties and then calculate the effective difference (a lot will cancel each other out) and only settle the real differences. There is more of course but that's the basics. For the consumer, streaming value doesn't need any kind of subscription. It doesn't even require a contract. You do not need to stream from netflix because that's what you already have an pay for monthly. You pay whoever gives you what you want. It's kinda like if you could use cash without the obvious downsides of physically moving coins and with the ability to split it in whatever fraction you'd like. Please watch the youtube video. He explains this way better than I could. It goes down to the level of IP data packages. Something similar could be made (is being made) with value. >If I understand correctly, the current situation is that there are free services where you can upload/insert data, free services where you can download/consume—and there are paid services for both too. Most of the content people access on the internet is "free" as in no need to pay for it other than pay for the internet access. Same is also true for "inserting" as in upload it somewhere. However physically inserting it (hosting) isn't free even if you find a free host it's just paid by someone else. Hence hosting (inserting) costs while pulling is mostly free. Every other market works exactly the opposite way. You can't get an apple for free at any store. There is no way someone else is gonna pay the apple for you if you just look at some ads. If the internet would work more like a store, some people would insert data and other people would access/download and they would pay for that directly not let someone else pay in exchange for horrible userexperiences, horrible privacy, huge additional traffic waste etc. All of that could really only turn successful because data started moving freely over the internet and it grew exponentially while moving value basically has not changed at all.
- fwip 7y ago
  Why do I care whether it's a "debt transaction" or a "value transaction?"
  - noxer 7y ago
    If you get that transaction you probably prefer the value rather than the debt. Value is free to move, debt is an agreement between 2 parties. If you get paid with debt it means you get nothing but someone owes you something now. This someone is usually your bank. You can cash out that debt at any time and that gives the feeling that there is value stored at the bank. But that's not really the case everyone knows that it would not work if a lot people would want their debt payed back. Instead of cashing the debt out you can just send that debt to someone else. This is called transaction but as you already know there is nothing to move. It just adjust balances of debt. You tell the bank that a part of what they owe you should now be owed by someone else. If its someone is using the same bank then this is super simple. If he is form another bank the 2 Banks must work together to update the balances over 2 systems. If the 2 Banks do not have any relationship with each-other then they need to find corresponding banks and create a chain of trusted relationships to move that debt around. This is why Tx from account to account of the same banks is super simple fast and cheap/free but the further you go the longer it takes and the more Banks in between want some kind of fee for the service. It comes to the point where you simply can't make a transaction anymore because either the fees are way to high or there just isn't a bank to bank to bank chain that could move the debt. Or of course there are billions of people who do not have a bank. There are payment companies who fill in that gap where you can input a bank transaction (debt) and they deliver cash etc. It's sill expensive and slow in most cases and it absolutely does not work with small value(debt) Tx. There is no way to send 1USD from USA to Mexico for an acceptable fee and in an acceptable time. If you could send value instead you could avoid literally all these problems. Value is value everywhere it doesn't matter where you send it from and where you send it to. There is no need for cooperating banks. It's like if you could pay cash but globally (without the different currencies of course because value is currency independent). Imagine if value would be represented by gold. I buy gold worth 1 USD and send it anywhere in the world and the person who gets it sells it for his local currency. Now replace the gold with crypto because gold can not be send over the internet but cryptos can. Everywhere, very fast/cheap (not with BTC) and without any chain of trusted entities in between the endpoints. It's also final unlike debt Tx which can be reversed by the banks and payment provider in between. Which is bad for the endpoints but also for the corresponding bank chains since they all have to take the risk of reversed Tx which leads to higher fees.

seibelj 7y ago

Legacy payments network is a dumpster fire. It works but just barely. Crypto is much cleaner and will take it over eventually, give it time.

pavlov 7y ago
This is an example of what I meant by speculating on a growth story. 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. 2019 cryptocurrency lets you pay for something, sort of, not really, but will be very clean one day — never mind that millions are already paying for things and sending money because “it’s a dumpster fire”.
- mopsi 7y ago
  > 1994 Internet let you talk to people and exchange information around the world — things that you couldn’t do before. You could. There were phones and snail mail after all, weren't there? They were slow an expensive just like wire transfers between US and EU bank accounts are: 2-3 workdays and a $35-45 fee to move around a few bytes in existing financial messaging systems. Pure madness.
  - pavlov 7y ago
    Wire transfers between US and EU take a few hours to clear and cost $25. I send them all the time. In Europe, transfers between all banks are becoming instantaneous starting Jan 2020: https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-instant-credit-transfer https://www.europeanpaymentscouncil.eu/what-we-do/sepa-insta... The cost is pennies. No need for a crypto-anything solution.
    - noxer 7y ago
      US <-> EU is a corridor with huge volume the legacy systems are therefore very very optimized for this. Inside EU Tx are basically inside the same system which is centralized and updating balances is super simple cheap and fast. Try to send some USD to Mexico or something instead. Also a Tx taking hours and costing 25 bucks is absolutely not going to allow the Internet of Value to show it's possibilities. It may be acceptable to buy something and let it be ship to you. but what about services? instant services how could they be paid with such a system. Watch the youtube video linked above if you want to get an idea of the IoV. It's on a completely different scale. Value streaming a fraction of a cent at a time. Instant and basically free.
      - pavlov 7y ago
        Like millions of people, I buy instant services on the Internet all the time using those nasty legacy "dumpster fire" systems. They even provide a nice built-in feature called "chargeback" in case the service isn't what I expected. Cryptocurrencies don't seem to care about that part of customer experience at all. (Btw, when you say "just watch this YouTube video about an amazing business opportunity", what I hear is: "I believe you're a sucker".)
        noxer 7y ago
        If you don't want to watch the video I suggested but then argue with semi valid arguments because you have not seen the video, I kinda feel like I should just not reply anymore which is exactly what I will do after this post. >Cryptocurrencies don't seem to care about that part of customer experience at all. The idea which again is described in the video which you don't want to watch makes "chargebacks" something you do not need in many cases. The data/value streaming just stops if one side stops hence you don't need any agreement or contract. You pay for what you get and if you stop paying the other will stop as well. Some services obviously don't work that way and there will always be use for a third party middleman who takes the risk, guaranties service/money for both sides. The idea isn't to destroy all the business agreements that exists and then start them all again but use some fancy new way to pay each-other that does the exact same thing just differently. The idea is that a whole new sector of services will become possible because of that new tech. I don't feel the need to convince you into anything I just think you aren't aware of the fundamental changes the new tech can bring because all you saw is Bitcoin. I suggested the video purely because he explains the vision of the IoV very accurate. He's not gonna tell you to buy shitcoin XY or trow money into companies that try to build stuff with that new tech. If you watch it and think that this all will never happen, that's fine who knows. At least we talk about the same Idea then. Here is the link again https://youtu.be/Lxqz_NlX3GI https://youtu.be/Lxqz_NlX3GI Should be quite interesting for anyone in the tech/IT space even if one completely disagrees with his vision.
perl4ever 7y ago
Cryptocurrency seems like the inverse of the internet revolution to me. Internetworking realized the vast potential of all the computers in the world. They could do so much more if talking to each other. Crypto via "proof of work" takes all the unused computing capacity everywhere and creates an incentive to waste it. What it seems like to me is a hybrid virus that uses both human minds and machines to spread and suck up resources.
- noxer 7y ago
  BTC is 10 years old. Tech has come along way since then. Proof of work clearly isn't the revolution. There is no need to waist energy to make blockchains/DLT work. Just like light doesn't have to be produced by turning 95% of the energy into heat. Inventions never start with the final product. But there will always be people who prefer the first product.
  - perl4ever 7y ago
    I mean, if someone says that (a) proof of work is the only viable solution and all others have flaws you can't get around, (which I have noticed people claiming) and (b) BTC is still the most successful cryptocurrency, which people are not abandoning, what's your response? You just made a string of assertions without explanation, so why do you think these things?
    - noxer 7y ago
      Well (a) is simply wrong. Proof of works has flaws (energy wasting/tends to centralize) which can not be fixed. But others have fixed these flaws by not using PoW. Yes there are people telling that PoW and Bitcoin is the best and all other systems are flawed. They are called Bitcoin Maxis, their arguments usefully fall flat when you apply logic. They don't even agree with each other about which Bitcoin is the real Bitcoin. >BTC is still the most successful cryptocurrency How do you measure success of a cryptocurrency? Also being the first gives huge advantage for "success". Like Whatsapp which is probably the most successful instant messenger but does that mean it's the best? It takes time to dethrone something like Whatsapp or Bitcoin just having the better tech isn't enough to instantly make everyone switch. >You just made a string of assertions without explanation, so why do you think these things? You have any specific question? I don't really know what I should explain. If you are interested in alternatives to PoW you should lookup XRPL Consensus (Federated Byzantine agreement) a variant of this is also uses by the Stellar Consensus Protocol. Then there is PoS which is the most known alternative. DPoS is building on top of that idea. Then there is PoWeight, Tangle, Hashgraph and some other less popular and/or not (yet) working ideas/theories.

noxer 7y ago

In short credit cards do not move value at all. You authorize payment instructions. Which in turn leads to balances being adjusted. It's basically a debt transaction instead of a value transaction. It has several advantages like that banks can adjust balances for a specific time with many parties and then calculate the effective difference (a lot will cancel each other out) and only settle the real differences. There is more of course but that's the basics. For the consumer, streaming value doesn't need any kind of subscription. It doesn't even require a contract. You do not need to stream from netflix because that's what you already have an pay for monthly. You pay whoever gives you what you want. It's kinda like if you could use cash without the obvious downsides of physically moving coins and with the ability to split it in whatever fraction you'd like. Please watch the youtube video. He explains this way better than I could. It goes down to the level of IP data packages. Something similar could be made (is being made) with value. >If I understand correctly, the current situation is that there are free services where you can upload/insert data, free services where you can download/consume—and there are paid services for both too. Most of the content people access on the internet is "free" as in no need to pay for it other than pay for the internet access. Same is also true for "inserting" as in upload it somewhere. However physically inserting it (hosting) isn't free even if you find a free host it's just paid by someone else. Hence hosting (inserting) costs while pulling is mostly free. Every other market works exactly the opposite way. You can't get an apple for free at any store. There is no way someone else is gonna pay the apple for you if you just look at some ads. If the internet would work more like a store, some people would insert data and other people would access/download and they would pay for that directly not let someone else pay in exchange for horrible userexperiences, horrible privacy, huge additional traffic waste etc. All of that could really only turn successful because data started moving freely over the internet and it grew exponentially while moving value basically has not changed at all.

fwip 7y ago
Why do I care whether it's a "debt transaction" or a "value transaction?"
- noxer 7y ago
  If you get that transaction you probably prefer the value rather than the debt. Value is free to move, debt is an agreement between 2 parties. If you get paid with debt it means you get nothing but someone owes you something now. This someone is usually your bank. You can cash out that debt at any time and that gives the feeling that there is value stored at the bank. But that's not really the case everyone knows that it would not work if a lot people would want their debt payed back. Instead of cashing the debt out you can just send that debt to someone else. This is called transaction but as you already know there is nothing to move. It just adjust balances of debt. You tell the bank that a part of what they owe you should now be owed by someone else. If its someone is using the same bank then this is super simple. If he is form another bank the 2 Banks must work together to update the balances over 2 systems. If the 2 Banks do not have any relationship with each-other then they need to find corresponding banks and create a chain of trusted relationships to move that debt around. This is why Tx from account to account of the same banks is super simple fast and cheap/free but the further you go the longer it takes and the more Banks in between want some kind of fee for the service. It comes to the point where you simply can't make a transaction anymore because either the fees are way to high or there just isn't a bank to bank to bank chain that could move the debt. Or of course there are billions of people who do not have a bank. There are payment companies who fill in that gap where you can input a bank transaction (debt) and they deliver cash etc. It's sill expensive and slow in most cases and it absolutely does not work with small value(debt) Tx. There is no way to send 1USD from USA to Mexico for an acceptable fee and in an acceptable time. If you could send value instead you could avoid literally all these problems. Value is value everywhere it doesn't matter where you send it from and where you send it to. There is no need for cooperating banks. It's like if you could pay cash but globally (without the different currencies of course because value is currency independent). Imagine if value would be represented by gold. I buy gold worth 1 USD and send it anywhere in the world and the person who gets it sells it for his local currency. Now replace the gold with crypto because gold can not be send over the internet but cryptos can. Everywhere, very fast/cheap (not with BTC) and without any chain of trusted entities in between the endpoints. It's also final unlike debt Tx which can be reversed by the banks and payment provider in between. Which is bad for the endpoints but also for the corresponding bank chains since they all have to take the risk of reversed Tx which leads to higher fees.