4 ms·

> you can just build software and it will "run" forever, at no cost to the developer. We already have software that runs at no cost to the developer. It's call

> you can just build software and it will "run" forever, at no cost to the developer. We already have software that runs at no cost to the developer. It's called software.

bombcar 5y ago
That's the main problem with many of the "blockchain" solutions - is that they're just reimplementations of already-existing solutions to problems. You can run someone else's software and pay for the actual running thereof, it's called installing it on a virtual machine (and things like the AWS Marketplace exist for turn-key solutions). Maybe something "microtransactiony" could happen here - but why would you need a blockchain when AWS can just make "Marketplace for normal people"? And many of the other solutions provided end up having a central authority, in which case why not just have ... a database? Amusingly enough most crypto exchanges are internally run not on a blockchain but on a database, even though in theory one entirely on a blockchain might be a workable use case.
- sprafa 5y ago
  Huh? Are you not familiar with uniswap? That’s a fully decentralised exchange running on blockchain.
  - bombcar 5y ago
    Interesting - I expected there to be one, but I've never heard of it compared to the big-names.
    - sprafa 5y ago
      Uniswap is relatively new - started really working last year. There are large numbers of decentralised exchanges now.
    - DennisP 5y ago
      You might not have heard of it but it does significant volume. For example, if you look at the USDC markets and sort by 24-hour volume, you'll see that Uniswap is at the top. https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/usd-coin#markets https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/usd-coin#markets
  - brighton36 5y ago
    But not so fully as to offer decentralized ACH or SWIFT onramps. USD support comes in the form of bonds, largely offered by unaudited firms, without risk compensation. (and it offers this service at a far greater cost and latency than centralized alternatives) And yes, I know, there's the promise of 'a solution to these problems' on the horizon. But this promise will always exist in blockchain, because the investors are arrogant, and incapable of understanding the technology. (and willfully ignorant of such understanding)
- dehrmann 5y ago
  > they're just reimplementations of already-existing solutions to problems They're also federated, but at the cost of being exponentially more expensive to run.
- chrisco255 5y ago
  Because we tried the whole centralized database thing and it just leads to trillion dollar monopolies built on value extraction of users and open source developers.
  - sprafa 5y ago
    Yep
sprafa 5y ago
How do you run an Uber replacement app at no cost to the developer ?
momothereal 5y ago
There's a significant amount of software that is ran by the developer (hosting) at a cost to the developer. The idea here is that the user pays for the hosting directly instead.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  You don't need a blockchain to charge your users a fee.
DennisP 5y ago
If it's just software running locally, you don't have common data with global consensus on updates. If you have the common data, it's on a central database and the developer is paying for it. Blockchains give you the common data without the developer paying.
- nonameiguess 5y ago
  This doesn't remove cost. It just imposes it on the owners of blockchain nodes, which presently don't charge anything because crypto coins shooting through the roof means they can pay for running the node by just holding coins. This can't stay the case forever. Pushing cost somewhere else doesn't remove it.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    I don't think anyone here argued that blockchains are totally free to run, just that developers don't have to pay. Mainly the costs are paid by users, who pay fees to miners for running their transactions. You don't have to run a node to hold coins. A piece of paper can do it.

> you can just build software and it will "run" forever, at no cost to the developer. We already have software that runs at no cost to the developer. It's called software.

bombcar 5y ago

That's the main problem with many of the "blockchain" solutions - is that they're just reimplementations of already-existing solutions to problems. You can run someone else's software and pay for the actual running thereof, it's called installing it on a virtual machine (and things like the AWS Marketplace exist for turn-key solutions). Maybe something "microtransactiony" could happen here - but why would you need a blockchain when AWS can just make "Marketplace for normal people"? And many of the other solutions provided end up having a central authority, in which case why not just have ... a database? Amusingly enough most crypto exchanges are internally run not on a blockchain but on a database, even though in theory one entirely on a blockchain might be a workable use case.

sprafa 5y ago
Huh? Are you not familiar with uniswap? That’s a fully decentralised exchange running on blockchain.
- bombcar 5y ago
  Interesting - I expected there to be one, but I've never heard of it compared to the big-names.
  - sprafa 5y ago
    Uniswap is relatively new - started really working last year. There are large numbers of decentralised exchanges now.
  - DennisP 5y ago
    You might not have heard of it but it does significant volume. For example, if you look at the USDC markets and sort by 24-hour volume, you'll see that Uniswap is at the top. https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/usd-coin#markets https://www.coingecko.com/en/coins/usd-coin#markets
- brighton36 5y ago
  But not so fully as to offer decentralized ACH or SWIFT onramps. USD support comes in the form of bonds, largely offered by unaudited firms, without risk compensation. (and it offers this service at a far greater cost and latency than centralized alternatives) And yes, I know, there's the promise of 'a solution to these problems' on the horizon. But this promise will always exist in blockchain, because the investors are arrogant, and incapable of understanding the technology. (and willfully ignorant of such understanding)
dehrmann 5y ago
> they're just reimplementations of already-existing solutions to problems They're also federated, but at the cost of being exponentially more expensive to run.
chrisco255 5y ago
Because we tried the whole centralized database thing and it just leads to trillion dollar monopolies built on value extraction of users and open source developers.
- sprafa 5y ago
  Yep

sprafa 5y ago

How do you run an Uber replacement app at no cost to the developer ?

momothereal 5y ago

There's a significant amount of software that is ran by the developer (hosting) at a cost to the developer. The idea here is that the user pays for the hosting directly instead.

nonameiguess 5y ago
You don't need a blockchain to charge your users a fee.

DennisP 5y ago

If it's just software running locally, you don't have common data with global consensus on updates. If you have the common data, it's on a central database and the developer is paying for it. Blockchains give you the common data without the developer paying.

nonameiguess 5y ago
This doesn't remove cost. It just imposes it on the owners of blockchain nodes, which presently don't charge anything because crypto coins shooting through the roof means they can pay for running the node by just holding coins. This can't stay the case forever. Pushing cost somewhere else doesn't remove it.
- DennisP 5y ago
  I don't think anyone here argued that blockchains are totally free to run, just that developers don't have to pay. Mainly the costs are paid by users, who pay fees to miners for running their transactions. You don't have to run a node to hold coins. A piece of paper can do it.