10 ms·

The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Start with coil.com what th

by noxer 5y ago

The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. It must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the transactions" Its not impossible to make it central it just not lucrative in any way. But if the middlemen is removed it doesn't have to be lucrative for that middlemen anymore and it turns out to be almost free because you just need to send p2p data packages to stream money. Its called interledger protocol (ILP) its not a blockchain its a protocol but like I said above you need to settle somehow and which bank or financial system lets you settle fractions of cents? No one because there is no money to be made from this so a system that does not generate money for the owner (a decentral system) works best.

arcticbull 5y ago
> The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Correct. > Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. It must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the transactions" Any wallet could offer the same thing. PayPal could offer it. But they don't because nobody wants micropayments. Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments, it's something they think they do, but in reality, they do not. This comes up from time to time. One of the crypto folks actually wrote a really good paper on it, I'll dig it up. You just build up the balance until it's over $1 and ACH/RTP it. Those transaction methods cost $0.0033 in bulk. Further, this is just revisiting whether people are willing to pay for content online. They are not. They would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything.
- noxer 5y ago
  >Any wallet could offer the same thing. No, its not a wallet at all its a protocol like TCP but for money. If you are interested go read about it first. There is no point in arguing about something you dont know what it is. >PayPal could offer it Yes, they could but its not lucrative and if it would be they would not be interested in using a public interoperable protocol where everyone can offer the same service and compete. So you have some sites that use PayPal and other sites use 15 other payment companies. You just recreated subscription hell. Its completely missing the point. If its decentral and standardized all systems work together. If I have the wrong token or currency the decentral system finds a way to swap them so I can use any services no matter what "wallet" or currency I use. I cold stream Netflix and Amazon Prime and only pay what I watch and when I watch. Also why would I want PayPal to know whom I stream money? If its central its impossible to hide such data. If its p2p no third party know what content I pay for. That's how it should be. >Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments We already have it.... its called ads. Ever page load, every click, every interaction and every data collected about you is a form of inefficient micropayment. One that does not respect your privacy, tires to maximize the time you waste and tries to trick you into buying stuff you dont need. And the cost of that is slapped onto the product you may buy. Don't you think there are tons of people out there who would rather not annoy their visitors with ads? They would rather have them pay a few fraction of a cent directly to them without the ad-mafia taking a huge junk out of the revenue. And dont you think there are people who would rather pay a few fraction of a cent than see ads or block ads knowing that the content creator does not get paid then? >Further, this is just revisiting whether people are willing to pay for content online. They are not. They would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything. That's your personal opinion. The facts are not on your side. People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. It does not scale to the number or services the average user wants to use. And it hardly adjust to the actual use. Its objectively just so much worse than if you could stream for what you use in real time. You could go a long way without ads for a few bucks if you would replace them with the actual revenue they create. Only if your time is worthless you would rather watch a 15 second ad than pay 1/10 cent or whatever to not see it.
  - reedjosh 5y ago
    > People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. People will pay if it's a frictionless payment of a small amount reflective of the value gained. Netflix did this with movies, Spotify with music, `crypto with everything?` if the tech and business models are worked out.
    - noxer 5y ago
      Imagine how awesome it would be if you could search for a movie choose the service that current has the best cost/byte ratio for your location (they can make this variable to manage load). Then you start streaming. No registering needed. Not even a login. After 10 min you notice the film sucks so you stop the stream. You only payed for the first 10 min. Totally friction-less ofc. You could watch on a random TV anywhere and stream the money from your phone. Sounds like sci-fi but we have all the key tech needed for this.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        It sounds not very compelling. Id rather give Netflix $50/mth and not worry about any of that. [edit] not to mention, content creators don't price their movies in dollars per byte haha, they price it based on what they think people will pay. This is part of the reason all you can eat is much more enjoyable.
        noxer 5y ago
        I think you didn't get the bigger picture. Its not for streaming a movie is for everything on the web. Why would you pay 50 for Netflix if you can just consume content wherever you want for 50 bucks instead. They can still offer you a flat rate if they want. The option to pay what you use doesn't take the option to pay upfront or whatever away. There is no doubt they will lure you into using the same service somehow but that's kind irrelevant. The goal is to have the choice and that you can pay/support the small fishes too. The one you would never make a subscription for. Same with donation. You probably dont have Wikipedia or hacker news subscription. But leaving a few cents for free content ever month would probably be a good idea to keep it free. Its not "all you can eat" is "you can eat where you want" you never missed that because it was always like that you never needed a subscription for certain food or restaurant chains. You just go and eat wherever you want and they all expect you to pay what you ordered or whatever deal they offer. This system makes it far more likely you go eat somewhere new and far more likely that you eat spaghetti where you like it the most and pizza somewhere ease. Web content should work the same.
megameter 5y ago
Exactly - a good use of a decentralized ledger doesn't leave so much room for speculative profit motives. However, my own investment thesis is that the "crypto" market is ultimately destined to march towards that useful and unprofitable outcome, kicking and screaming the whole way, by dint of the long-term market survivors being the civically oriented perennials. But this is a long journey, maybe another decade or two in the making(a epochal shift in tech). It will continue to have ups and downs.
- noxer 5y ago
  The goal was to remove the middlemen to make stuff cheaper/unbiased/fair/private. The token prices going up an down is indeed just a side effete of speculation. but will definitely go away over time its not solving any problem and it hides the tech because people just see the money.
mtalantikite 5y ago
> Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. I’m sorry, what? Genuinely curious about what the use case is here, I’ve never heard of this before. I pay based on the amount of time I consume?
- noxer 5y ago
  Currently Coil costs you 5 bucks a month and its distributed to the content creators that you consume on the basis of how long you consume them. The Creator must have a web monetization enabled website [1] to participate. And you need either an add-on or a browser that has it integrated. The creator can show/hide content based on whether you stream money or not (kinda like a paywall) Its obviously intentional very simplified ATM because its rather new. There is long way to go before we can actually pay for exactly what we consume. [1] https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ Old (2018) but fun: A Raspberry Pi ILP power switch (Turns on a light if money is streamed) https://xrpcommunity.blog/raspberry-pi-interledger-xp-powerswitch-howto/ https://xrpcommunity.blog/raspberry-pi-interledger-xp-powers...
  - mtalantikite 5y ago
    Isn’t this roughly similar to what Spotify does? You get paid based on how many listeners you have? Or YouTube paying the content hosts a split on ad revenue? I guess I’m not sure what crypto solves here that doesn’t actually already happen. Isn’t Coil just another centralized place you pay that then pays out to its network, like everyone else?
mtnGoat 5y ago
Re: coil.com, what they do is entirely possible on a centralized system. cam sites have been using token based internal payment systems based on minutes viewed, tips, etc at sub $0.01 levels for 20+ years now. and until the tubes came along, all sides profited handsomely. source: i helped build some.
- noxer 5y ago
  That not what coil does. Coils is just payment provider for web monetization. You can use another (probably none exist so far) and more importantly you can use web monetization outside of coil owned platforms. The cam site thing maybe look similar on the surface but its not. It only works in very limited full controlled closed system. It can not scale to the web. You would need 100+ subscriptions in the end that not the goal. Or you would need one overlord that has the monopoly on web monetization and everyone is forced to use g$$gle. Obviously bad for all kinds of reasons like privacy, competition, censorship etc etc. Web monetization puts a payment pointer into the HTML meta tag The browser reads this and streams money there. See https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started
  - e12e 5y ago
    > you can use web monetization outside of coil owned platforms. Like you can use PayPal to sell (access to) digital assets? Or patron? I'm not sure which part of the core value proposition of coil has anything to do with blockchain? And small wonder: crypto/chains allows us to transfer trust (eg, I trust i can buy milk for my dollar, I buy bitcoin for a dollar, I give you bitcoin, if you can sell bitcoin for a dollar, we trust that I have given you the opportunity to buy milk). This could also go via bank transfer, or hybrid systems like PayPal,stripe or vipps[1]. I see some benefit to "magic crypto cash on the interwebz"- but untraceable tender is generally not what chains facilitate. Quite the opposite. When you realize crypto currency can go two ways: perfect taxation (billionaires and corporations will fight it, to the death), or: perfect money laundring/tax evasion (government will fight it, to the death) - the crypto future looks quite distant. [1] a Norwegian bank owned platform for instant digital settlement: https://vipps.no https://vipps.no

by noxer 5y ago

arcticbull 5y ago

> The post above has a list of companies who build on top of such a decentral permission-less system that apparently has no benefits. Correct. > Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. It must be p2p and there must be a ledger to "settle the transactions" Any wallet could offer the same thing. PayPal could offer it. But they don't because nobody wants micropayments. Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments, it's something they think they do, but in reality, they do not. This comes up from time to time. One of the crypto folks actually wrote a really good paper on it, I'll dig it up. You just build up the balance until it's over $1 and ACH/RTP it. Those transaction methods cost $0.0033 in bulk. Further, this is just revisiting whether people are willing to pay for content online. They are not. They would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything.

noxer 5y ago
>Any wallet could offer the same thing. No, its not a wallet at all its a protocol like TCP but for money. If you are interested go read about it first. There is no point in arguing about something you dont know what it is. >PayPal could offer it Yes, they could but its not lucrative and if it would be they would not be interested in using a public interoperable protocol where everyone can offer the same service and compete. So you have some sites that use PayPal and other sites use 15 other payment companies. You just recreated subscription hell. Its completely missing the point. If its decentral and standardized all systems work together. If I have the wrong token or currency the decentral system finds a way to swap them so I can use any services no matter what "wallet" or currency I use. I cold stream Netflix and Amazon Prime and only pay what I watch and when I watch. Also why would I want PayPal to know whom I stream money? If its central its impossible to hide such data. If its p2p no third party know what content I pay for. That's how it should be. >Nobody's ever actually wanted micropayments We already have it.... its called ads. Ever page load, every click, every interaction and every data collected about you is a form of inefficient micropayment. One that does not respect your privacy, tires to maximize the time you waste and tries to trick you into buying stuff you dont need. And the cost of that is slapped onto the product you may buy. Don't you think there are tons of people out there who would rather not annoy their visitors with ads? They would rather have them pay a few fraction of a cent directly to them without the ad-mafia taking a huge junk out of the revenue. And dont you think there are people who would rather pay a few fraction of a cent than see ads or block ads knowing that the content creator does not get paid then? >Further, this is just revisiting whether people are willing to pay for content online. They are not. They would rather be subjected to ads and not pay anything. That's your personal opinion. The facts are not on your side. People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. It does not scale to the number or services the average user wants to use. And it hardly adjust to the actual use. Its objectively just so much worse than if you could stream for what you use in real time. You could go a long way without ads for a few bucks if you would replace them with the actual revenue they create. Only if your time is worthless you would rather watch a 15 second ad than pay 1/10 cent or whatever to not see it.
- reedjosh 5y ago
  > People already pay to not see ads its just cumbersome because every service needs a subscription or pro app or whatever. People will pay if it's a frictionless payment of a small amount reflective of the value gained. Netflix did this with movies, Spotify with music, `crypto with everything?` if the tech and business models are worked out.
  - noxer 5y ago
    Imagine how awesome it would be if you could search for a movie choose the service that current has the best cost/byte ratio for your location (they can make this variable to manage load). Then you start streaming. No registering needed. Not even a login. After 10 min you notice the film sucks so you stop the stream. You only payed for the first 10 min. Totally friction-less ofc. You could watch on a random TV anywhere and stream the money from your phone. Sounds like sci-fi but we have all the key tech needed for this.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      It sounds not very compelling. Id rather give Netflix $50/mth and not worry about any of that. [edit] not to mention, content creators don't price their movies in dollars per byte haha, they price it based on what they think people will pay. This is part of the reason all you can eat is much more enjoyable.
      - noxer 5y ago
        I think you didn't get the bigger picture. Its not for streaming a movie is for everything on the web. Why would you pay 50 for Netflix if you can just consume content wherever you want for 50 bucks instead. They can still offer you a flat rate if they want. The option to pay what you use doesn't take the option to pay upfront or whatever away. There is no doubt they will lure you into using the same service somehow but that's kind irrelevant. The goal is to have the choice and that you can pay/support the small fishes too. The one you would never make a subscription for. Same with donation. You probably dont have Wikipedia or hacker news subscription. But leaving a few cents for free content ever month would probably be a good idea to keep it free. Its not "all you can eat" is "you can eat where you want" you never missed that because it was always like that you never needed a subscription for certain food or restaurant chains. You just go and eat wherever you want and they all expect you to pay what you ordered or whatever deal they offer. This system makes it far more likely you go eat somewhere new and far more likely that you eat spaghetti where you like it the most and pizza somewhere ease. Web content should work the same.

megameter 5y ago

Exactly - a good use of a decentralized ledger doesn't leave so much room for speculative profit motives. However, my own investment thesis is that the "crypto" market is ultimately destined to march towards that useful and unprofitable outcome, kicking and screaming the whole way, by dint of the long-term market survivors being the civically oriented perennials. But this is a long journey, maybe another decade or two in the making(a epochal shift in tech). It will continue to have ups and downs.

noxer 5y ago
The goal was to remove the middlemen to make stuff cheaper/unbiased/fair/private. The token prices going up an down is indeed just a side effete of speculation. but will definitely go away over time its not solving any problem and it hides the tech because people just see the money.

mtalantikite 5y ago

> Start with coil.com what they do it not possible with the financial system. They enable users to stream money to content creator in real time with fractions of cents per second. A central system would not make any sense. I’m sorry, what? Genuinely curious about what the use case is here, I’ve never heard of this before. I pay based on the amount of time I consume?

noxer 5y ago
Currently Coil costs you 5 bucks a month and its distributed to the content creators that you consume on the basis of how long you consume them. The Creator must have a web monetization enabled website [1] to participate. And you need either an add-on or a browser that has it integrated. The creator can show/hide content based on whether you stream money or not (kinda like a paywall) Its obviously intentional very simplified ATM because its rather new. There is long way to go before we can actually pay for exactly what we consume. [1] https://webmonetization.org/ https://webmonetization.org/ Old (2018) but fun: A Raspberry Pi ILP power switch (Turns on a light if money is streamed) https://xrpcommunity.blog/raspberry-pi-interledger-xp-powerswitch-howto/ https://xrpcommunity.blog/raspberry-pi-interledger-xp-powers...
- mtalantikite 5y ago
  Isn’t this roughly similar to what Spotify does? You get paid based on how many listeners you have? Or YouTube paying the content hosts a split on ad revenue? I guess I’m not sure what crypto solves here that doesn’t actually already happen. Isn’t Coil just another centralized place you pay that then pays out to its network, like everyone else?

mtnGoat 5y ago

Re: coil.com, what they do is entirely possible on a centralized system. cam sites have been using token based internal payment systems based on minutes viewed, tips, etc at sub $0.01 levels for 20+ years now. and until the tubes came along, all sides profited handsomely. source: i helped build some.

noxer 5y ago
That not what coil does. Coils is just payment provider for web monetization. You can use another (probably none exist so far) and more importantly you can use web monetization outside of coil owned platforms. The cam site thing maybe look similar on the surface but its not. It only works in very limited full controlled closed system. It can not scale to the web. You would need 100+ subscriptions in the end that not the goal. Or you would need one overlord that has the monopoly on web monetization and everyone is forced to use g$$gle. Obviously bad for all kinds of reasons like privacy, competition, censorship etc etc. Web monetization puts a payment pointer into the HTML meta tag The browser reads this and streams money there. See https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started https://webmonetization.org/docs/getting-started
- e12e 5y ago
  > you can use web monetization outside of coil owned platforms. Like you can use PayPal to sell (access to) digital assets? Or patron? I'm not sure which part of the core value proposition of coil has anything to do with blockchain? And small wonder: crypto/chains allows us to transfer trust (eg, I trust i can buy milk for my dollar, I buy bitcoin for a dollar, I give you bitcoin, if you can sell bitcoin for a dollar, we trust that I have given you the opportunity to buy milk). This could also go via bank transfer, or hybrid systems like PayPal,stripe or vipps[1]. I see some benefit to "magic crypto cash on the interwebz"- but untraceable tender is generally not what chains facilitate. Quite the opposite. When you realize crypto currency can go two ways: perfect taxation (billionaires and corporations will fight it, to the death), or: perfect money laundring/tax evasion (government will fight it, to the death) - the crypto future looks quite distant. [1] a Norwegian bank owned platform for instant digital settlement: https://vipps.no https://vipps.no