3 ms·

These comments remind me of the crapping-on uBeam took on HN after a few people decided, upon a cursory glance, that it was theoretically impossible and ridicul

These comments remind me of the crapping-on uBeam took on HN after a few people decided, upon a cursory glance, that it was theoretically impossible and ridiculous. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8542091 We still can't be 100% sure if it's ridiculous or not, but all signs are pointing to not. So assuming Balaji et al are acting in good faith and aren't scamming their investors (one of whom Balaji is a partner in so that would be weird) this is cool and I can't wait to see what it does and where it goes.

waterlesscloud 11y ago
It's not so much a matter of deciding it's ridiculous. It's that the numbers for the mining part are off by several orders of magnitude. For that to work at all, they'd have to have some technology that revolutionized bitcoin mining at the most fundamental of levels, and they haven't indicated that they do. That's what's so weird about this.
notahacker 11y ago
These comments reminded me of the crapping-on Colour took on HN, not even on the grounds of theoretical impossibility of the product but simply the buzzword-laden me-too nature of their pitch. Turns out the naysayers were right: whilst the team weren't intentionally scamming the VCs that backed their remarkably large pre-product fundraising efforts, the world's first stealth social network might as well have been a scam for all the traction it achieved. I'm having to hedge my scepticism on the basis that I know I know barely any more about bitcoin mining technology than the average layman, and VCs can bring in highly skilled specialists for their due diligence, especially for investments of this magnitude. But when a press release fails to acknowledge the level of technical breakthrough they'd need to have achieved for their product to be viable, and instead launches straight into a series of theoretical monetisation strategies of varying degrees of plausibility, I think the cynicism is entirely warranted. If they actually have a team of engineers that could develop chips with far more computational power in relation to their size and energy requirements than anything else on the market, you'd have to wonder why they'd think persuading consumers to put Bitcoin miners in their pocket was the most promising avenue to monetise.
- NeutronBoy 11y ago
  > If they actually have a team of engineers that could develop chips with far more computational power in relation to their size and energy requirements than anything else on the market, you'd have to wonder why they'd think persuading consumers to put Bitcoin miners in their pocket was the most promising avenue to monetise. Basically, if they've got the tech to do this, they could get rich just by selling that tech, and not screwing around with Bitcoin

waterlesscloud 11y ago

It's not so much a matter of deciding it's ridiculous. It's that the numbers for the mining part are off by several orders of magnitude. For that to work at all, they'd have to have some technology that revolutionized bitcoin mining at the most fundamental of levels, and they haven't indicated that they do. That's what's so weird about this.

notahacker 11y ago

These comments reminded me of the crapping-on Colour took on HN, not even on the grounds of theoretical impossibility of the product but simply the buzzword-laden me-too nature of their pitch. Turns out the naysayers were right: whilst the team weren't intentionally scamming the VCs that backed their remarkably large pre-product fundraising efforts, the world's first stealth social network might as well have been a scam for all the traction it achieved. I'm having to hedge my scepticism on the basis that I know I know barely any more about bitcoin mining technology than the average layman, and VCs can bring in highly skilled specialists for their due diligence, especially for investments of this magnitude. But when a press release fails to acknowledge the level of technical breakthrough they'd need to have achieved for their product to be viable, and instead launches straight into a series of theoretical monetisation strategies of varying degrees of plausibility, I think the cynicism is entirely warranted. If they actually have a team of engineers that could develop chips with far more computational power in relation to their size and energy requirements than anything else on the market, you'd have to wonder why they'd think persuading consumers to put Bitcoin miners in their pocket was the most promising avenue to monetise.

NeutronBoy 11y ago
> If they actually have a team of engineers that could develop chips with far more computational power in relation to their size and energy requirements than anything else on the market, you'd have to wonder why they'd think persuading consumers to put Bitcoin miners in their pocket was the most promising avenue to monetise. Basically, if they've got the tech to do this, they could get rich just by selling that tech, and not screwing around with Bitcoin