6 ms·

> Crypto-currency ... is really useful as a backend technology. I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit mo

by jahnu 2y ago

> Crypto-currency ... is really useful as a backend technology. I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere. Unless we count gambling and illicit money transfers. All other associated activity appears like a rounding error compared to its non-crypto counterparts to me.

marginalia_nu 2y ago
Web 3, as an idea, is actually pretty good. Its biggest problem is that it's surrounded and promoted by a bunch of cryptobros who see yet another easy grift. But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become. The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new. A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- JackC 2y ago
  Federated verifiers who are kept independent out of band are strictly superior to proof-of-x verifiers for a distributed ledger: lower transaction costs, wider feature space, less centralized. Proof-of-x tends towards one verifier, because it's an unregulated marketplace hence tends to monopoly. The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.
- _nalply 2y ago
  Microtransactions won't work for many people. Deciding to buy or not to buy is expensive. People are afraid of making a mistake and need a significant need to risk buying something. After a few times people have learnt how things work, then the decision loads decreases. Grocery shopping is one of these cases.
hulitu 2y ago
> I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere Ransomware ? /s

by jahnu 2y ago

marginalia_nu 2y ago

Web 3, as an idea, is actually pretty good. Its biggest problem is that it's surrounded and promoted by a bunch of cryptobros who see yet another easy grift. But at face value, if you could add a small seamless transaction cost to the web (idk, it takes 1c to read a blog post and 50c to post a blog comment), you'd basically eliminate almost every form of spam and re-align the incentives in the attention economy away from those of online advertisement. Ultimately it could just save the web from the mess it's become. The banking and cards system isn't set up for that sort of workflow. Transaction costs are too high and you'd basically tie all your online activity to your real identity. So you need something new. A distributed ledger would be almost required for future-proofing. There's an enormous juicy opportunity for rent-seeking if you assign a private entity the task of being the arbiter of every transaction of the new web; that needs to be designed out.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
JackC 2y ago
Federated verifiers who are kept independent out of band are strictly superior to proof-of-x verifiers for a distributed ledger: lower transaction costs, wider feature space, less centralized. Proof-of-x tends towards one verifier, because it's an unregulated marketplace hence tends to monopoly. The one application where this isn't true is when regulatory risk prevents lawful verifiers -- i.e. illegal transactions. So, it's not coincidence -- proof-of-x will always be dominated by illegal user stories and desire paths as it is now, because that's where it's not strictly inferior.
_nalply 2y ago
Microtransactions won't work for many people. Deciding to buy or not to buy is expensive. People are afraid of making a mistake and need a significant need to risk buying something. After a few times people have learnt how things work, then the decision loads decreases. Grocery shopping is one of these cases.

hulitu 2y ago

> I still can't find any really useful examples anywhere Ransomware ? /s