8 ms·
Run is a platform to build apps and tokens on Bitcoin
- smt88 6y agoTwo questions: 1) Why would a user prefer an app that "runs on Bitcoin"? 2) Why would I as a developer want to target those users?
- user-the-name 6y agoBitcoin users today are extremely gullible, and make good marks for whatever scam you might be running. Or perhaps you would just like to take down the entire bitcoin network if you ever become mildly successful.
- abstrct 6y agoBitcoin users are exceptionally gullible? I'm going to need a source on that one.
- user-the-name 6y agoYou know how cults tend to turn more and more extremist and fanatical, partly through a process where the more reasonable people will leave at each step as things get worse? It's a lot like that.
- tuesdayrain 6y agoFrom what I have seen, anti-bitcoiners are more cultlike than bitcoiners :)
- glerk 6y agoI’m always amazed by these negative knee-jerk reactions whenever cryptocurrencies are discussed here. What pleasure do you get from berating other people for their hobby? It’s like commenting in a thread about an emacs plugin just to shit on emacs and its users because you prefer another IDE. I see no other explanation for this behavior than sour grapes.
- lawtalkinghuman 6y agoOne of those things is a text editor and the other involves extremely risky unregulated investments that some people have lost enormous amounts of money through.
- tuesdayrain 6y agoBitcoin investors have certainly lost less money per capita than /r/wallstreetbets has lost on options trading. Regulation doesn't have much to do with it.
- smt88 6y agoThe existence of other, bigger suckers does not prove that anyone else is not a sucker. Both types of trading (crypto and public market) are gambling. The difference is that some public securities have intrinsic value (dividends and voting rights), whereas crypto mostly doesn't.
- user-the-name 6y agoI get pleasure from warning people away from spaces that are filled with scammers and criminals that might try to fool them out of their money. If bitcoin only were silly technologists playing around with pie-in-the-sky software projects, that would be one thing. But people's money is being stolen. Lives are being ruined, for real. Real people suffer because of this technology, and criminals prosper. That is an objective evil. The sooner bitcoin dies, the better for humanity.
- ur-whale 6y agoKnight in shining armor complex much?
- user-the-name 6y agoNo, I just hate people who trick others out of money, like literally any decent human being.
- brighton36 6y agoCoinmarketcap.com
- ChainOfFools 6y ago"'coin. market. cap.' Amazing. every single word you just said is wrong." - Luke Scamwalker
- spurdoman77 6y agoNah, the bitter soy boy is just jealous holding that index fund etf and looking from sidelines how btc makes 1000% gains.
- user-the-name 6y agoHere we have a nice example.
- loceng 6y agoIt might be better if you're less dramatic and don't generalize as much - there's a whole spectrum of people who are pro-Bitcoin / "army of HODLers" members: from less reasonable, who are less of critical thinkers - more gullible - to those who are critical thinkers and understand Bitcoin et al is just gambling and they're riding it for as much as they can - happy to be greedy and taking advantage of others. I wrote a reply recently to an article posted here by someone pro-Bitcoin - an "early adopter" as they call themselves - who has more critical thinking, however they've been indoctrinated into and must have ignored looking into or trying to understand the pitfalls in order to remain indoctrinated, and to which their own bias of being financially incentivized into seeing the positive in Bitcoin has allowed them to be misguided; https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25551114 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25551114 - you'll probably be aligned with what I say. TL;DR - It's not helpful to use inflammatory language like "[all] Bitcoiners today are extremely gullible."
- user-the-name 6y agoStill true, though.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- SnowProblem 6y agoHey good questions! Because you can create new experiences for users. Bitcoin can be thought of as a shared database for apps to interact. Assets and code can be reused and built on top of each other, leading to stronger network effects. Game are one obvious use case, but people are coming up with others. Imagine bringing items from one game to another, or creating worlds that build on top of each other. Something like Ready Player One.
- f6v 6y agoI’ve heard this one many times, but I just don’t get it. Are there good examples where apps built on any kind of blockchain had massive success BECAUSE they are using blockchain?
- yunesj 6y agoMaybe proof of existence (document certification), decentralized DNS, provably fair gambling, and prediction markets?
- f6v 6y agoI mean, I've heard this before and even entertained an idea of building couple apps on blockchain myself. But are there any real-world apps which were 1. adopted by a large number of users 2. adopted by users specifically because of blockchain? I just never seen anything like that and Ethereum has been around long enough.
- smt88 6y ago> Maybe proof of existence (document certification) This is interesting, but I'd still want to know a specific. Most document authentication works fine with a centralized source of truth. It could be a postal service (the postmark proves a document was mailed at a certain time), Docusign, Google Drive, or just plain email. > decentralized DNS DNS is already decentralized. You can choose whom you trust, or you can build your own DNS database and just trust yourself. Perhaps you meant "decentralized domain registries" (like the way Verisign manages official .com registrations). That's more interesting, but it would also be terrifying. A bug or 51% attack could kill your entire company if you trusted that registry. I suspect you would also get some sophisticated attempts at buying up millions or billions of the domain names in order to sell them later at a profit, which essentially centralizes all those names. > provably fair gambling Why would you need a blockchain for this? Couldn't you cryptographically sign each round of bets without a blockchain? > prediction markets No idea what the application is here, but curious for your explanation.
- meowkit 6y ago1) Network effects, but I wouldn’t want to build/use anything on BTC either. Ethereum and similar are a different story. You use a DLT if you want access to data/transactional immutability and/or want to avoid rules/control set by centralized entities. 2) You target users who you think you can help or make money off of? You have to state your goal as a developer, can’t answer that for you.
- mathiasrw 6y agoThe platform is built on BSV, not BTC.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jaredtn 6y agoEthereum is a much better place to build apps and tokens. The ERC-20 standard has been game-changing. Currently 19 tokens at $100M+ market caps, with more to come.
- SnowProblem 6y agoEthereum has the developer mindshare and tooling today, no doubt. But ETH also has fundamental scalability problems which are pushing out smaller value transactions. The team behind CryptoKitties for example left to develop their own chain that scales better. My belief is that UTXOs and the Bitcoin model are going to be simpler and more efficient at representing state and state transitions because it can be done locally and on one chain, rather than globally and sharded across multiple.
- wmf 6y agoNow there's EVM on Avalanche so you can have all the Solidity bugs you know and love with greater scalability.
- jaredtn 6y agoAgree that today, Ethereum transaction fees are terrible. But I'm quite optimistic for the future. First we have Layer-2 rollups: https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/layer-2-scaling/ https://ethereum.org/en/developers/docs/layer-2-scaling/. Even setting sharding and rollups aside, Eth2 and PoS rather than PoW should give a significant boost to transaction throughput. I don't see bitcoin competing in that domain, it's taken on the role of "digital gold" rather than "world computer".
- wcoenen 6y agoBefore starting work on Ethereum, Vitalik worked on "colored coins", i.e. tokens on Bitcoin. The 2013 Ethereum whitepaper[1] talks about the various limitations in Bitcoin that motivated the creation of Ethereum. One of them was that tokens on bitcoin do not work well for light clients. [1] https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/ https://ethereum.org/en/whitepaper/
- SnowProblem 6y agoI disagree with Vitalik and don't think these ideas were explored far enough. You can do proof-of-work on L2 state just like L1 which would enable light clients. The benefits of the colored coin approach is that the base consensus layer stays simple, like Internet packets, and more complex logic can be pushed out to apps or second-layer nodes that specialize.
- wcoenen 6y ago> You can do proof-of-work on L2 state just like L1 which would enable light clients. The more I think about this, the less sense it makes to me. Do you have a reference that explains how this would work? It sounds like you're talking about building a blockchain on top of a blockchain, which doesn't seem practical. Surely it would be better to handle decentralized consensus once in the base layer, so that the layer on top can focus on other things? Think IP vs TCP: TCP doesn't come with its own solution for relaying packets across network boundaries. It relies on IP for that, and instead it focuses on providing reliable streams.
- SnowProblem 6y agoYes, something like that. Users could pay extra fees for their transactions to be part of L2 consensus and to be loadable by light clients. If they don't pay, the event is still recorded on-chain, so apps and services they trust can still load their and others' tokens if its in their interest. Apps shoudn't have a problem keeping up, if they want to, so long as L2 state is localized (ie. colored utxos, not metacoins/accounts). They might even share relevant L2 transactions with other services that are also indexing that protocol in a sub-network. These are just some of the ideas I am exploring.
- blackrock 6y agoThe crazy thing to me about Bitcoin, is that if you lose your Bitcoin wallet, which must be stored offline, and in an air-gapped computer, or a physical hardware wallet device, then you lose all your money. There is no recourse. There is no customer service department or claims department to speak with. Unless maybe if you bank with say coinbase, where they may ensure your bitcoins for you in case of a hack. Unless someone can provide a counter argument to this. Or something else changed in the past few years.
- tuesdayrain 6y agoYou listed some valid alternatives to managing your own keys. Coinbase is pretty safe and insured (https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-policies/how-is-coinbase-insured https://help.coinbase.com/en/coinbase/other-topics/legal-pol...). Also even if you are managing your own keys, it's reasonably easy to store an encrypted version of your wallet seed somewhere it will never get lost.
- blackrock 6y agoHow much does it insure? Satoshi’s gold Bitcoins are worth something like $8 billion dollars. I doubt anyone is insuring that. Even the FDIC only insured up to $100,000 of your bank account. Maybe up to $250,000 now.
- ur-whale 6y agoSure, if you're a fan of fractional reserve banking (as in: the bitcoins you own don't really need exist), coinbase is the perfect thing for you.
- qot 6y agoNot quite. You can restore your entire wallet and all the bitcoin with your 12 to 24 word backup phrase.
- ur-whale 6y agoYou're describing a feature.