FarmBot – Open-Source CNC Farming [video] - <AUTHOR> https://farmbot.io/ <comment><USER2> This is cool but seems a tad over engineered.

I have a garden. It uses a drip line that's buried in the ground. It's $10 worth of tubing from Lowes with a few holes where plants go. It's on a $15 timer that waters automatically once a day. I do, however, have to take a few minutes to put seeds in the ground.

That said, I would be throwing money at the monitor right now if this thing was smart enough to identify weeds and remove them. (Maybe that's in the plans? They have a part for weeding shown.)

But I love all these new ideas around farming. The most interesting is hydroponics considering how much more resourceful it is with water (sometimes using 90% less water per equal amount of harvest).

Edit: for those asking, all I used was half inch black tubing (the kind they use for automated sprinkler systems), drilled small holes every 12 inches, buried it, hooked it up to a spigot with a timer, and that's it.

<comment><USER3> I agree. For me, planting seeds is easy and watering is straightforward (driplines on a timer). It's the weeding (despite mulching) and pest control that is ongoing, time consuming and difficult to automate.

If I don't dust tomatoes or cover broccoli/etc I will lose almost everything.

Something that skimmed/raked the surface lightly at regular intervals between rows to frustrate slugs and disrupt weeds would probably help me, but not sure how it could reliably account for varying plant types, sagging leaves, wayward tomato vines, etc.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I agree (in part). This stuff makes a lot more sense when you add climate / light control. Some plants are very difficult to cultivate, coffee for example (it needs constant temperature and will drop all leaves if you leave the window open on a frosty day). Others, like tomatoes, are difficult/impossible to get right if your garden is too shady (personal experience).

The energy costs for indoor climate / light regulation can quickly become outrageous compared to super market veggie prices. Therefore, I think this type of tech is for rare exotic plant, maybe historical even.

Imagine buying a piece of tech for growing historical coffee plants in your basement where you set the climate control to Kenia or Hawaii (buy the soil addon?) and which guarantees (as in `likely it will yield') you 2kg of your own personal coffee harvest per plant. This stuff has urban hipster $$$ written all over it.

<comment><USER5> > Imagine buying a piece of tech for growing historical coffee plants in your > basement where you set the climate control to Kenia or Hawaii (buy the soil > addon?) and which guarantees (as in `likely it will yield') you 2kg of your > own personal coffee harvest per plant. This stuff has urban hipster $$$ > written all over it.

If you could control climate and soil to that degree, I can think of a certain plant that you could grow that will yield much more profit than a coffee plant: [http://botanycentral.providence.wikispaces.net/file/view/coc...](http://botanycentral.providence.wikispaces.net/file/view/coca1.jpg/185968069/614x464/coca1.jpg)

<comment><USER6> Yes, these discussions of alternative farming options always wind up being about growing drugs:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11845573)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is pretty much how I see the future of agriculture. Give the FarmBot a bunch of wheels / robotic feet to move around and it could theoretically handle huge fields.

The key thing here is the possibility to monitor _each individual plant_ and react to changes in its development or environment (in contrast to modern industrial agriculture, were things are done with huge monster tractors).

I'm sure it can/will be improved to serve more functions - like removing weeds and collecting pests without the need for herbicides or pesticides and so on.

Eventually, these will all become software problems which the global programmer community will be more than glad to tackle.

The most important thing about FarmBot and similar tech, though, is the potential to de-centralize agriculture again and make small-scale, local agriculture possible, without needing to employ human labor. Not only would this create a new market for high-tech agricultural tools and software and make growing your own food easy (even in the city !), it is a very welcome solution to the many environmental problems that large-scale industrial agriculture generates today.

So I'm very optimistic and happy about this tech and I wish you guys all the luck.

<comment><USER8> >This is pretty much how I see the future of agriculture.

This is how I see it. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140717-japan...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/07/140717-japan- largest-indoor-plant-factory-food/)

<comment><USER9> How are you going to grow e.g. corn or bananas this way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Holy crap is this thing for real? Sorry but this is straight up inefficiency in its finest. Honestly the amount material to produce one farm bot far out weighs the amount of produce in can produce. Like I hate monoculture farming but a 20 Ton tractor can service like 10 Thousand acres of dry area/irrigated cropping country a piece of piss, do it automated and by GPS and return Hundreds of Tons of produce.

TBH if someone would just build me a robot that has 20 km range, can deal with crawling up hills and can identify coloured shapes and "pick" them (pneumatic suction would probably do it), We could put a few tens of thousand blueberry/coffee pickers out of business.

FarmBot will not put anyone out of business. The Japanese Aeroponic farms have a better chance of being the future of production.

<comment><USER11> You're missing the point/s. This is starting technology. Very rarely does something revolutionary start out more efficient and cost effective than the old way. Not to mention this project in its current status is aimed at hobbyists.

PS I downvoted you for the negativity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't get your site to load, so I checked out the hackaday page.

Trying not to be overly cynical here, but how is this worth the cost? It appears that it simply plants, waters, and detects/removes weeds. In a 1,250sq.ft. garden, we invest less than 2 hours per week on these tasks.

How would this be scalable? How do you spell scalable?

How would this justify its cost?

How does it withstand being outside all year, year round?

How does it not just destroy your crops when they grow tall?

How could this possibly improve on current farming methods (outside of removing chemical weed-killers maybe)?

I understand it's in its infancy, but I'm genuinely having a hard time with this.

<comment><USER13> > How would this be scalable?

Extend the x and y axis?

> How would this justify its cost?

Presumably by saving costs elsewhere? Labor, chemical inputs. Not saying it's there yet though, but why should it be?

> How does it withstand being outside all year, year round?

A cursory glance at the specs indicates that they've considered waterproofing at least. I imagine "the elements" will prove even more challenging than expected, but it's not like this wasn't considered.

> How does it not just destroy your crops when they grow tall?

The y axis is up pretty tall, and the manipulator is pretty narrow to get down in between plants. Clearly it is not advisable to grow crops that are taller than will fit in the machine.

> How could this possibly improve on current farming methods

Automation? We don't expect Burger King robots to improve on culinary techniques. I feel this is mostly interesting for repeatable research uses, but as basic manual labor savings it's interesting as well.

(I am in no way affiliated with this project... just seems easy to see the potential, and odd to treat a prototype as if it needs to make a business case right out of the gate)

<comment><USER12> I'm genuinely not trying to treat it as if it's a business right away. It's just, I don't know, maybe I'm too close to farming to get my head out of it.

I'm a 4th generation farmer in my spare time. The variables required in agriculture are just too many for something like this, is my opinion. I get it, farming isn't immune from technology, but this just seems like over- engineering a problem.

<comment><USER13> > The variables required in agriculture are just too many for something like > this, is my opinion.

I'm certain there is a lot of complex knowledge locked up in farmers' brains that most folks wouldn't even think of. The same is true for doctors though, and it doesn't seem foolish that folks are creating expert systems to help with complicated diagnostics and such. Surely the wisdom of farmers can be codified and emulated reasonably well by software.

Further, maybe this is only limited to a subset of agriculture. It doesn't need to apply to every crop type to be useful. It's probably dumb to grow 100 acres of wheat this way. Perhaps it's useful for highly-controlled small beds of high-value high-labor-input vegetables or such?

<comment><USER14> I would love to see a shared open database of environment and care parameters. Imagine all of the ounces of water per week per watt of sunlight type optimizations. Identifying okra that is ready to pick would be nice -- the maximum size for tenderness and plant health. A shared open db of farming parameters would be awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I like that the design is open-source but it is just putting seeds in the ground and watering them. That is not a complex task. I believe this [http://openag.media.mit.edu/](http://openag.media.mit.edu/) is a better system for food growth.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is clever, and I applaud CNC principles being applied in such a unique way. But once the planting and prep is done (which takes a few hours max for me to do by hand) I now have a several thousand dollar watering can.....

Make no mistake, this is where agriculture is heading and the people behind this are obviously clever and innovative. I just don't think this is a very compelling product (outside of the "A robot planted my veges" kudos)......yet.

<comment><USER17> You could play with it, so that it does the weeding (and snailkilling) for you ...

<comment><USER16> Totally, which is why I added "...yet"

Making dinner in the kitchen? Hit "Salad" on the app and have your farmbot harvest the ingredients for a 300g garden salad....

Lots of cool applications and I got prepared for "buying mode" when I watched the video. But three deep breaths reminded me that this wasn't going to return the value to my life that it had initially cost...yet

<comment><USER17> Unfortunately yes, unless you want to play and mod with it, I also don't see it as a really usefull product, yet.

But we are here on HN, right? ....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This thing might be cost-effective if it were scaled up to round farm size. A standard center-pivot irrigator is 400 meters long. An arm that could travel along a track on the irrigator, do precision planting, and look at the plants might be useful. The amount of mechanism would be modest for the area covered.

</comment><comment><USER19> site seems to be down? I'm guessing it's this project: [https://hackaday.io/project/2552-farmbot-open-source-cnc- far...](https://hackaday.io/project/2552-farmbot-open-source-cnc-farming)

<comment><USER20> Thanks for commenting this! Yes, we just got a huge surge of traffic and our site crashed. Haha it should be up now. I'll be monitoring it. - Rory (founder at farmbot.io)

(And yes, that is our entry on Hackaday!)

<comment><USER20> Oh god. Haha too much traffic!!! Beefing up our server now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I bet installing that thing, programming, and feeding it is at least an order of magnitude more time consuming than the actual farming by hand.

</comment><comment><USER22> What a cool concept! If any members of FarmBot team are watching this thread, could you comment on why you decided to make everything open source? Clearly, it's an awesome benefit for the community, but how does it also serve FarmBot the company?

I'm asking b/c I'm curious about business models that build heavily on open source.

<comment><USER23> They could charge for support, custom designs, consulting etc or sell fully built systems or kits. There are still plenty of options.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Using roller-skate wheels and having the gantry ride directly on top of the side-boards of the raised-bed garden would be a great way to reduce parts count here. [https://youtu.be/3vgjJikt9B4?t=41s](https://youtu.be/3vgjJikt9B4?t=41s)

</comment><comment><USER25> I like this but I think a crane rather than track and gantry makes more sense, eh?

<comment><USER26> A drone maybe? (even better no?) :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Really nice concept. Especially with greenhouses, you can build large systems of it in them.

But, and don't Vote me down, considering current events, how long until we see a "Weedbot"?

<comment><USER28> As the author of a recently-linked post about mushroom growing pointed out, home-grown drugs have encouraged a level of experimentation and ingenuity that is rarely found among most gardeners. This is partly due to risk/reward: if you've spent $100 on seeds, you want to make damn sure they crop. People go to great lengths to figure out how to get the best yield from their weed plants, how to precisely control the growing conditions and so on. There's also a strong culture of sharing advice between growers which helps.

However, probably a better solution for something like weed would be this: [http://openag.media.mit.edu/](http://openag.media.mit.edu/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Wow. Just wow.

I don't know that I've been this excited about a piece of machinery before. This product has the potential to completely change the way we obtain and consume food. I understand it's very niche at the moment. And the price tag will likely be huge for the first run. But this is a great first step and I'll try to pre-order a kit.

<comment><USER12> >This product has the potential to completely change the way we obtain and consume food.

That's seems like an unbelievably large statement to make. Can you explain what you mean by all this excitement?

<comment><USER29> This product allows a person that knows nothing about farming to be a farmer. How much space does the average person have in their back yard? Sitting idle, wasted. Not doing anything but providing a bit of aesthetic appeal.

If the price point gets low enough, if construction is easy enough, and if enough people latch onto the movement this could be a game changer. Even if 10% of a family's food comes from Farmbot, that's 10% of food that doesn't need to be shipped across country for their consumption.

This is essentially a 3D printer for food.

<comment><USER30> > How much space does the average person have in their back yard?

Not nearly enough. In Sili Valley, I live on a 8000 sq ft lot. In much of the USA, people live on 1/4 to 1/2 acre lots. A garden that will produce enough fresh produce during the growing season to feed a family of 4 during the season along with enough to preserve for the off season is bigger than that lot, even before you subtract space for the house. I invite you to do the math.

My mother's garden fed us the year around. That garden was bigger than my current city lot.

<comment><USER29> I'm definitely not suggesting that self-subsistent farming will be common with the product. Certainly not in SV!

But it doesn't have to, right? If it can augment your grocery trips and prevent however much food you would've purchased from being shipped cross country, it's definitely left a mark.

I didn't mean to suggest it would supplant the supermarket, only allow people to more easily grow their own food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Instead of using this cnc-like machine with tracks and stuff like that, wouldn't it be more cheap and simple to use a radial design like many large crop fields already use? It might remove the weed pulling feature in early iterations, but it seems much easier for just watering/nutrition.

</comment><comment><USER32> Interesting that people have a very different reaction when they see a working video and not just some ideas.

Last time this was posted on Hacker News three years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451350](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6451350)

</comment><comment><USER33> I think it is the "remake" of a harvester. It is still a machine, that moves above a field on wheels and performs some useful activity on the place where it is located, before moving to the next place.

</comment><comment><USER11> Awesome! I think i'll build this on my balcony! I've acually been planning something similar in my head for years. But never actually did anything about it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Memories of Farmville - this is amazing but it wont work on the large scale, the models seem to slow to in its workflow to care for a larger area.

</comment><comment><USER35> I've interacted with Rick a bit in the past and hes an awesome developer. Really glad to see progress continuing with this.

</comment><comment><USER36> In my climate, I get a little extreme fighting the cold. A fairly obvious interchangeable tooling suggestion is some manner of hook or electromagnet or "whatever" to manipulate a cold frame door. Just a helpful suggestion.

</comment><comment><USER37> Holy fucking amazing!</comment>


Windows 7 Ink Input and Math Handwriting Recognition - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/e7/archive/2009/04/23/ink-input-and-tablet.aspx

<comment><USER2> When I was a graduate student at Brown I was advised by Andy van Dam and was a member of the 'Microsoft Center for Research on Pen-Centric Computing' (<http://pen.cs.brown.edu/>)

The research group had developed an in-house math recognition engine that was very impressive but required some training and relied on some heuristics that worked for the group but likely wouldn't work for a general population. The math recognition engine was built out of necessity because Microsoft's previous math reco was terrible.

Gates, being a huge proponent of natural human interfaces and the pen in general, and the folks at Microsoft have put major efforts toward what's going into 7. They actually had two different teams working on math reco, one in China and one in a European center. The China team came out to visit us once and their engine was driven by a _massive_ corpus of user-written input. From the sound of things their engine was further along so I wouldn't be surprised if this is what is in 7.

Microsoft has poured _significant_ resources into handwriting recognition development, internal research, and external research. 7's support is going to be the best we've ever seen.

</comment><comment><USER3> I still look at good handwriting recognition much like cold fusion. I'll believe it when I'm on the intergalactic starship.

</comment><comment><USER4> _Have you heard of the formula recognized in the example above? You haven't J, well, it's the Schwarz formula used in complex analysis!_

I wonder if the "J," in this article caption is a typo (or "handwriting-o"?) for a question mark, caused by using the handwriting recognition system to write the article?

<comment><USER5> More probably a font-transliteration issue. J in Wingdings is a smiley. I often see it in Outlook emails received in Thunderbird where the sender typed a smiley, outlook converted it to a Wingdings smiley, then it got converted into plain ASCII.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not being a big fan of tablet PCs and pen input, if the math input works as good as it seems, I can definitely see how that would have made entering formulas in my masters thesis a million times quicker.

For most (in the western part of the world) these are probably rather niche features, but it still looks like solid work: It reads kanjis better than I do :)</comment>


Doctors tell UK authorities Julian Assange 'could die' in jail - <AUTHOR> https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/11/doctors-uk-authorities-julian-assange-die-jail-191125060147656.html <comment><USER2> It seems astonishing to me that the UK authorities let all 60 of these doctors perform an in depth medical assessment of Assange, but if that's the conclusion they came to, we should absolutely follow their advice.

>They based their assessment on "harrowing eyewitness accounts" of his October 21 court appearance in London and a November 1 report by Nils Melzer, the United Nations special rapporteur on torture.

Oh right, so actually these 60 doctors have put their name to a letter despite having never even spoken to or seen Assange, but instead have decided to just take a punt. I don't know why wikileaks keep pumping out such dross (I lie, I know exactly why).

<comment><AUTHOR> Worth noting that Nils Melzer, the UN Special Rapporteur on torture, did visit Assange. "Melzer was accompanied during his prison visit on 9 May by two medical experts specialised in examining potential victims of torture and other ill-treatment." [https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...](https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=24665)

You can read the full open letter by the doctors here: [https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/concerns-of-medical- doct...](https://medium.com/@doctors4assange/concerns-of-medical-doctors- about-the-plight-of-mr-julian-assange-ffb09a5dd588)</comment></comment>


Apple slow to process iPhone development contracts: would-be iPhone developers frustrated - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/03/07/would_be_iphone_developers_pulling_their_hair_out_by_the_roots.html

<comment><USER2> No matter how difficult it is to get whatever documentation in order, if there is decent enough money to be made then developers will jump through the hurdles to get it.</comment>


A Wells Fargo Employee Emailed the CEO Asking for a $10,000 Raise - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/A-Wells-Fargo-Employee-Emailed-The-CEO-Asking-For-A-10000-Raise-And-He-CCd-200000-Other-Employees/articleshow/44775251.cms <comment><USER2> The link above seems to 404, but this is the same story as far as I can tell:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/tyrel-oates-letter-to- wells-f...](http://www.businessinsider.com/tyrel-oates-letter-to-wells-fargo- ceo-2014-10)

I will be very interested to see how this turns out. I hope they decide to actually move forward with giving everybody a raise.

<comment><USER3> Most likely outcome is the employee is let go a few months down the line, and the company does not recognize the mentioned email.</comment></comment>


The blockchain paradox: Why DLTs may do little to transform the economy - <AUTHOR> https://www.oii.ox.ac.uk/blog/the-blockchain-paradox-why-distributed-ledger-technologies-may-do-little-to-transform-the-economy/ <comment><USER2> I agree with this article.

Proponents of blockchain tech argue its revolutionary quality is its ability to act as a decentralized and trustless database. But I don't ever hear them sort through the issue of how to agree on the schema for this trustless database.

For a group of people to use a decentralized DB, they have to agree as to what to store in it, and how to store it. They need to form consensus about how the system will work, and how the data will flow.

For example I've seen people on here mention applications such as a decentralized stock exchange, and a decentralized hotel rooms marketplace.

For either of these, it's necessary to get all the users of the system in a room and agree what is in scope and what is not, and in general what can be done with the system and how. At this point they already have a consensus, they trust each other, they might as well just set up a centralized database run by a 3rd party that manages the system, keeps it up to date and adds upgrades, instead of building it on the blockchain and hoping there are no major bugs in the cloud code and that it will live off gas.

For the stock exchange, that's exactly what we already have. We have institutions that are dedicated to running exchanges, which act as neutral arbiters. They use regular old centralised databases. When they have bugs in their code or the system makes a mistake they can even roll back trades, which they couldn't do on the blockchain.

Essentially this is the same argument as OP. The 3rd party's act of ironing out issues, deciding what the rules are and how they interact is synonymous with OP's term "governance". We agree that using/running the system is different than defining/implementing the system and the latter can't be done trustlessly.

And also governance gets a lot easier when you also run the system centralized ;)

<comment><USER3> With bitcoin, it is agreed upon using byzantine consensus. The only way a bad actor can manipulate the ledger is if they own enough nodes to gain a majority, which is virtually impossible. After just a handful of bit times is economically and mathematically impossible to reverse the contract.

I suggest listening to this Tim Ferris podcast with Nick Szabo: [http://tim.blog/2017/06/04/nick-szabo/](http://tim.blog/2017/06/04/nick- szabo/)

The entire idea is that no arbiter is truly neutral, no third party is truly trustworthy. Block chain is the onset of FAT protocols and trustful computing.

If the poor of the world can understand the social mobility that crypto currency affords them, there will be no stopping it, in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> _> The only way a bad actor can manipulate the ledger is if they own enough nodes to gain a majority, which is virtually impossible._

At times the leading BTC mining pool has controlled greater than 50% of the nodes. Would this not be enough to alter the ledger?

<comment><USER5> Notably, 'altering the ledger' here has a very restricted meaning. You can spend money, then reverse the spend back into your wallet. Or you can commit to a piece of information, then delete it.

But you can't alter the core protocol or fundamental network rules. If you do, the other nodes will ignore you.

<comment><USER6> But this is the fundamental question it's all about... the expectation that the other nodes will ignore you.

Somehow "the other nodes" have reached consensus about what protocols or rules to follow, and this is where we end up back at human governance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I had a Bitcoin for every skeptic that posts a blog on why it can't work...

This may just be my general observation but I feel like Silicon Valley hegemony has a grudge against crypto currencies and I'm not sure why. For an industry that has constantly tried new things and saw potential where no one else did, I just don't see the love for the potential of smart contracts, DApps, etc. And how this is just the beginning of what is possible and of course it's isn't perfect but it's fascinating to the curious.

I do see a lot of enthusiasm from Eastern Europeans and all across Asia and they seem to be leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution.

My working hypothesis right now is Silicon Valley has been getting fat on the virtually unlimited venture capital power structure and sees this as a threat they've missed out on to their power.

Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted?

<comment><USER8> The source of the distaste is obvious: breathless hyperbole without much substance to show for it. Posts like yours are a great example of it. In this very comment you write:

> _leading the charge on what could be the next major technical revolution_

Unsubstantiated hype. Where is the revolution? A common thread among cryptocurrency enthusiasts is that the revolution is coming... except it never does. When you talk about revolution, non-enthusiasts roll their eyes.

> _Silicon Valley has been getting fat on the virtually unlimited venture > capital power structure and sees this as a threat they 've missed out on to > their power._

A classic argument from crypto enthusiasts who have to imagine that people are literally afraid of bitcoin. It's laughably condescending and absurd. Bitcoin is not a threat to anyone and most certainly not silicon valley billionaires. Besides, it's not as if SV VCs haven't invested money in bitcoin, it's just that bitcoin is a horrible investment, e.g. 21.co, 120 million in VC dollars flushed down the toilet for a business model that was clearly a failure from the start, but those investors fell vulnerable to the hype and learned a valuable lesson from it.

> _Maybe the disrupters are being disrupted_

Another sample of breathless hyperbole that causes non-enthusiasts to cringe. Where is the disruption? Bitcoin is a smidgeon of a fraction of the commerce activity happening on the internet, and even with the rising price, bitcoin remains difficult and relatively unsafe to use (for the non-technical masses) and provides zero benefits for most people. Yes, peer to peer transmission of value is cool, I'm not saying bitcoin is useless, but for most people there is no reason to use bitcoin and there never will be. Contrast these facts on the ground with the never-ending blockchain hype and the result is overall disillusionment with blockchains in general.

<comment><USER9> Watch this video [1] of Bill Gates explaining the value of the Internet to David Letterman, where he's just not getting it at all. Bill's telling him the things it can do relative to David's interests, but he just sees those as problems that don't really exist because they've already been solved.

It took decades before the Internet was useful to "the masses." I don't think there's some conspiracy among VCs, but I do think dismissing cryptocurrencies for the reasons you have is short-sighted.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lskpNmUl8yQ)

<comment><USER8> I tire of the internet comparison. You're drawing a surface-level comparison between the greatest communication and economic innovation in human history and blockchain software, because people were skeptical of both. And? That doesn't prove anything except that people were skeptical of both; nothing in that comparison speaks to the underlying nature of either things being compared. They are not the same.

<comment><USER9> Well it's in response to your rebuttal.

> Where is the revolution? A common thread among cryptocurrency enthusiasts is > that the revolution is coming... except it never does.

A technology doesn't need to have all of its potential realized in the first few years of its existence.

> Where is the disruption? Bitcoin is a smidgeon of a fraction of the commerce > activity happening on the internet

The Internet was a fraction of the commerce activity happening relative to Sears / JC Penney / Walmart. Yet clearly only a few decades later all of these are disrupted by the Internet.

> bitcoin remains difficult and relatively unsafe to use (for the non- > technical masses) and provides zero benefits for most people.

...as was the Internet for the first few decades.

> Contrast these facts on the ground with the never-ending blockchain hype and > the result is overall disillusionment with blockchains in general.

This compares directly to, "Have you ever heard of radio?"

Literally every dismissal of cryptocurrencies you made would have applied exactly to the Internet in the early '90s or prior. There are far more similarities than "people were skeptical of both." It's totally fine to take your position but it's unrealistic to claim these as reasons it can't succeed.

<comment><USER8> > _Literally every dismissal of cryptocurrencies you made would have applied > exactly to the Internet in the early '90s or prior._

It seems I'm not getting through to you.

Just because two things have something in common doesn't mean that they're the same thing.

Showing that people were skeptical of the internet and blockchains does not demonstrate that blockchains will be as successful as the internet. There is no connection between the two (besides the fact that blockchains are software that run on the internet, like all things on the internet). They are totally different.

<comment><USER9> I guess I just feel like your rebuttal would be stronger if its only points weren't the same, yet ultimately irrelevant in the case of a prior technology with many similarities.

Of course they're not the same thing. That doesn't mean it's now totally valid to claim that it won't be successful due to the same roadblocks that the Internet overcame easily.

Do you have any arguments against cryptocurrencies that don't mirror early problems the Internet had, that people warned about, but ended up being very solvable? I think that'd be a lot more convincing.

<comment><USER10> Other than being a cryptocurrency, everything people are using blockchain based solutions for can be solved in a much more robust, complete, and scalable way using conventional software tools.

This is why it's not the revolutionary thing everyone is saying it is. As a cryptocurrency blockchain is the killer implementation. For anything else it just becomes a ridiculously bloated, clumsy, and slow database that hardly anyone understands and wastes electricity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> You can begin to see the beauty of Bitcoin when you want to accept payments. All you need to do is download a wallet, generate an address and put it online. You don't need anybody's permission, as would be the case with PayPal or the likes. The risk of somebody deciding on a whim to freeze your funds is also greatly diminished (again, very different from PayPal and the likes).

"Governance" and "Accountability" seem to be the antithesis to that. No, Bitcoin doesn't need that and doesn't want that.

Yes, it is a bit scary, it is a system that develops on its own, depending on the way it is being used (network effects and so on). I guess economists freak out because they are unsure about the rules, and they can't have that.

But it is also not true that it would be a huge problem if there were forks. Why would it be? People will simply use what works best for them, controlled by market forces (they need other people to use the same fork).

Who decides how Bitcoin develops? Ultimately the users do, by using it or not. Developers and miners merely provide proposals.

And why does a system need 100% agreement on everything? Such a system may well never exist.

<comment><USER12> Your dismissal of the problem with forks is missing a big danger to users. You say that market forces will control it, and people should just use what works best for them.

The problem is that you might guess wrong; you might look at the two forks, make your best guess as to which side is going to win out via the network effect, and put your money there. If you are wrong, and your fork dies out, there goes all your money. The market forces did their thing, and they wiped you out.

Yes, the 'users' are the ones who decide how the system develops, but that doesn't mean you as an individual user have any say; your voice will be overwhelmed by the crowd.

Of course, these risks aren't any different from the risks we face in the rest of the world. You can lose money by making the wrong choices, and your choices often get forced because of the decision of the crowd. However, we don't really face that risk using a stable national currency BECAUSE of the very things bitcoin fans tout as reasons to use bitcoin.

The reason using a currency like the US dollar is so popular is BECAUSE of the fact that the government forces everyone to accept the currency 'for all debts, public and private'. People are FORCED to accept the currency, so you can have confidence that you aren't going to be left with useless money if you accept dollars in payment. You don't have to worry about some other currency winning out as the defacto payment system, and losing all your wealth.

Of course, you have to put faith in the US government to maintain the currency, but it has a pretty strong track record of doing a fairly good job at that. I can't imagine a cryptocurrency every being able to be as stable as the dollar for hundreds of years; I mean, just look at the price volatility for bitcoins.

<comment><USER13> You have to put your faith in something.

I suppose it's not surprising that people with strong affinities for computing systems would rather put their trust in a computing system than a government of people. They understand computing, and so they feel more confident they can understand and mitigate its risks. They might not feel that way about the solvency of the Federal Reserve, or the fiscal health of the U.S. federal government.

It doesn't mean they're right. Blockchains might be objectively riskier than central banking. It's just that we each see the world through the filter of our own experience.

<comment><USER12> The entire point of the article is that it might FEEL like you are putting faith in a computing system when you use bitcoin, but really you are still putting your faith in a group of people. It doesn't matter how well you understand the mechanics of how bitcoin works, what really matters is the mechanics of how the people involved with bitcoin works, and that is the same as people everywhere.

You just can't escape human social politics.

<comment><USER13> I agree, and I think the article is essentially right. But again, not everyone is going to see it that way, depending on their inclination.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I agree with Vili Lehdonvirta's analysis about governance and wrote a similar conclusion previously.[1]

Yes, the concept of "money" existed before governments and therefore doesn't require government. That said, _today 's modern money_ is very much an instrument of government power. This is why alt-coins will not overthrow fiat currencies like some enthusiasts believe because Bitcoin does not come with its own Bitcoin-police-force and Bitcoin-law-courts.

The distributed block chain may eventually prove useful for other recordkeeping such as real estate property transactions (e.g. no need to pay $300 fee for title searches in the future), or maybe buy/sell internet domain names (e.g. don't need Verisign as middleman to buy dot com domains). Those scenarios are more realistic than Bitcoin/Ethereum replacing government approved fiat currencies. DLTs may still transform the economy -- but not in the ways people expect.

There's definitely some interesting applications of distributed consensus ledger but the idea of bypassing government money is overhyping its potential.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934120](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11934120)

<comment><USER15> > Bitcoin does not come with its own Bitcoin-police-force and Bitcoin-law- > courts

My government will enforce a contract even if it is denominated in some foreign currency, will it not? Currency used is independent of jurisdiction.

They may award _damages_ in legal tender, rather than in Bitcoin, but I have to pay taxes in legal tender anyway, so there will always be a market to convert back.

Right now they might be confused by Bitcoin enough that they won't effectively be able to assess damages, but that's not necessarily a permanent state of affairs.

<comment><USER16> Sure. But having to convert to pay taxes and debts is huge pain point for trying to conduct all your business in a foreign currency. It also adds transaction costs.

If you are a business, why would you ever try to run on bitcoin alone? There would have to be a huge advantage. And we see that in many small cottage industries where that is an advantage, like buying drugs online or illegal gambling.

But without the need for pseudo-anonymity why would anyone ever use it? Why would your grocery store use bitcoin over dollars? They wouldn't.

So crypto will probably be a currency in the long run, but it won't overthrow regular fiat.

Plus, if there was a huge benefit to crypto, the Fed could just do a crypto dollar and peg it to the real dollar.

<comment><USER17> > But without the need for pseudo-anonymity why would anyone ever use it? Why > would your grocery store use bitcoin over dollars?

Because the want the money from people which have bitcoins? Because creditcard fees are to high? (just forget about the BTC fees or the nearly fictional double spending problem) Another reason could be that the owner has Bitcoins and wants to support them. There might be more reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> There are plenty of examples where one party or a collation of parties set up the rules for a decentralized system that then goes on to operate successfully with little to no further enforcement. Email or TCP/IP are examples of such decentralized systems.

The fact that someone must make the rules and future actors may attempt to change those rules are problems but they do not invalidate the idea of decentralized systems.

I believe the author is reacting to his colleges misunderstanding of crypto technologies. He has bought in to their argument that what cryptocurrency needs to solve it's current problems is centralized control or governance. This, of course leads to the logical conclusion that if you must have centralized control then why use a blockchain at all.

The fallacy is in accepting that after the initial rules are set, that you _must_ continue to have governance to solve the inevitable disagreements. On the contrary, continued governance is the _problem_ faced by cryptocurrencies and other blockchain technologies. Their stability depends on adherence to the original agreement. Any change to that agreement is an existential threat.

It would however be a mistake to think that this problem completely invalidates such decentralized systems. They can and do continue to provide utility even in the face of attempts at continued governance. It's not about these systems working for eternity. It's about them working for long enough for life to happen.

<comment><USER14> _> Email or TCP/IP are examples of such decentralized systems._

I'm not sure about those analogies. SMTP email and TCPIP require DNS to route packets. DNS root authority is centralized. (Yes, DNS for performance purposes is _implemented_ across distributed computers worldwide but ultimate authority still traces back to the root servers.)

Even without DNS lookup, the numerical IP addresses are assigned by a central authority.

(Yes, if we're only talking about playing with protocols instead of actual global connectivity, one could run private SMTP on an isolated network with no central authority but that's not the analogy we're interested in.)

Maybe your analogies and my disagreement with them is a perfect illustration of what the author is talking about: _centralized governance is still there even if we don 't notice it._

<comment><USER19> It's not about eliminating centralization, it's about minimizing the fragility it causes in key areas. We minimize it by locating bottlenecks and finding solutions in these areas, not throwing our hands in the air unless we have 100% decentralization (assuming we even want that).

Sensible proponents of Bitcoin shouldn't argue that centralization is "wrong", but that monetary centralization creates perverse incentives, and that Bitcoin is a potential solution to this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> He misses the point that the developers do not control bitcoin; the miners control bitcoin. The developers suggest improvements which will only be adopted if the miners support those improvements.

The miner's interests are purely profit based, so they will not adopt changes which reduce their chance of profit.

<comment><USER21> Thank you for pointing out that the users of bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) have effectively no say in the design of the system they have to trust. This will ultimately limit the very trust needed to keep it alive IMHO.

<comment><USER22> > users of bitcoin (and other cryptocurrencies) have effectively no say in the > design of the system they have to trust.

how is that any different to the existing currency system like credit cards and banking?

And users _do_ have a say in bitcoins. Namely, they can vote with their wallet (literally and figuratively).

<comment><USER23> > how is that any different to the existing currency system

Fiat currency is governed by central banks, which are arms of government, and are accountable to the public in the same way as the issuing government. Obviously, the degree of accountability varies from government to government.

<comment><USER24> Except for the Eurozone where the ECB doesn't appear to really act as an arm of anyone's government.

<comment><USER25> Brexit demonstrates an available route to expressing disapproval of the ECB's actions.

<comment><USER24> The UK wasn't in the Eurozone - and I've been reading Yanis Varoufakis's books about his time as the finance minister of Greece and I've been fairly shocked at how fundamentally _undemocratic_ (not to say unreasonable) a lot of EU institutions and the likes of the IMF are.

And I say that as someone who voted Remain in the Brexit referendum (note that Varoufakis actually campaigned on the Remain side in the UK).

<comment><USER25> The Eurozone nations have EU exits available to them, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> One aspect of his argument that seems insufficiently explored is an apparent assumption that governance is primarily a binary state, either present or absent.

It's important to recognize that different approaches to governance have different levels of effectiveness and efficiency, and one of the most important aspects of blockchain is how it presents the first real improvement on the present state of the art in governance, or the first real competition to our current forms of government. It can help consensus to be achieved more quickly and efficiently and can make corrupt government more difficult. There are further improvements to blockchains being made to make amendable blockchains where changes to blockchain protocols and contracts can be tested in sandbox environments, essentially systems in which laws and contracts can be tested to see if they produce the desired results before implementing them. The Tezos blockchain is the most notable emerging example of this.

All of these improvements present much more powerful tools for aiding just governance than our forebears had when they created the constitutional democracies that presently govern the world. Governance is not some Platonic binary that is either absent or present, but it is an ideal towards which we're always striving and taking pragmatic steps to implement. Blockchains afford us new tools with which to achieve better governance. They are not an end in themselves or a replacement for traditional governance so much as a means to implement it more efficiently.

<comment><USER27> And furthermore that DTLs are a tool for enforcing corporate governance. It's a way of imposing it on organizations that otherwise would not exist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> DLTs are inefficient by design. The energy consumption is unsustainable with the technology as it stands. For example Bitcoin consumed an estimated 40 million KWh in the past 24 hours - _137KWh per transaction_. Enough to power ~1.3M American homes. Many of the alt-coins are even worse.

Source: [http://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy- consumption](http://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption)

<comment><USER29> I wonder what's the energy consumption of an average credit card transaction (including keeping the infrastructure, charge backs etc.)...

<comment><USER19> The more important point is that VISA is broken by design. Every day hackers steal credit card info and leech millions from the system, which is included in the fee you pay. The only reason it keeps working is because hackers aren't sufficiently sophisticated yet.

The solution, of course, is to store a private key on a hardware device, not have the private key be 16+3 decimal digits and an expiration date.

<comment><USER30> I agree with you, but this is in principle a separate issue. We would like to aim for a system that has both the security of Bitcoin AND the "efficiency" of, in this example, VISA.

<comment><USER19> That would be great, but what if such a system doesn't exist? Pointing out inefficiencies in Bitcoin isn't very useful when no alternative exists to reach the same level of decentralization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Here are some things you can do in Bitcoin today:

\- Send any amount of money anywhere in the world. Fee is around $1 \- Be your own bank. Your money cannot be frozen or seized \- Use a service such as put.io or VPN without giving up your identity (pseudonymouysly) \- Exchange Bitcoin for cash when traveling in countries such Thailand more cheaply than ATMs \- Buy controlled substances, for medicinal or recreational use \- Store any amount of money in your head, on a usb stick, or on paper. If price movements worry you, just hedge, a service offered by several companies \- Bet on sports regardless of your geographic location

Sounds transformative to me.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't understand why "competition" should not work? Switching currencies is easier than switching citizenship. There are plenty of alternative cryptocurrencies with different rules. User can switch to different ones (and Ethereum is quite a challenger at the moment).

The network effects are great, because otherwise everything would explode into a million different currencies.

<comment><USER33> Currencies need to have systems in place that work to make them stable and preserve value, otherwise they're just tools for transactions.

This might be a better state of affairs if currencies are backed by something exchangeable (e.g., joules of carbon neutral energy, etc...). We don't have many currencies like that in the world, as I understand it. Most are essentially contracts between governments that may or may not end in violence.

<comment><USER34> SolarCoin is one such effort.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I was having a similar conversation with a colleague given about 3-rd party enforcement. The news that a Jaxx wallet user had $400,000 in Bitcoin stolen just came out. [1] Who do you turn to reverse that? There's no one really. I'm not sure DLT's are mature enough for serious global investment yet.

[https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/users-report- losing-400000-d...](https://www.cryptocoinsnews.com/users-report- losing-400000-due-to-jaxx-wallet-vulnerability/)

</comment><comment><USER36> Interestingly, the way things are right now, when it comes to governance model on a global scale, the Big Bad Banks are _more decentralized_ than Bitcoin or any other crypto currency.

Even if it weren't so, I still don't get why total decentralization is an absolute good thing.

Nature seems to be a symbiosis between centralized and decentralized systems - at every level; extremes (too much or too little centralization) will lead to isolation/extinction or explosion/implosion - think biological systems or stars in galaxies.

I disagree with my crypto anarchist friends who believe that changing the money system will change society (eg. society is a function of money) and I tend to think that the relationship is more symbiotic - society has to change in order for the money to take other roles.

Even so, given human nature, it is not clear if a totally decentralized monetary system is a good thing for society as a whole.

People trust 'authorities' more than they trust math written by a bunch of 'core' devs and that's because the former can easily apply brute force and coerce the latter. Yes, we're still primates and the bigger/stronger argument is still valid.

So I don't think Bitcoin will dramatically change society, but some form of symbiosis between the current banking system and the crypto currencies will emerge eventually - and then we can talk about centralization at a whole different level. Either way, there's no escaping it.

</comment><comment><USER37> What this article is missing is the word "decouple". Cryptocurrencies decouple the many roles that are involved in maintaining and using a currency. It doesn't "solve" governance issues, it breaks them into smaller issues that can be (and should be) tackled in isolation.

Anyone who doesn't see this and argues "we should just go back to the way we were doing things before" is missing the point.

</comment><comment><USER38> The economic benefit of mostly automating governance is huge. Large financial institutions push so much through COBOL/DB2 on mainframes. The cost of updates to the contracts is horrid and mostly manual taking months if not years. The biggest loser is IBM and it's largest z/OS clients.

</comment><comment><USER39> _If_ there's a new argument to be had here (I'm doubtful, it sounds like a re- hashing of governance issues that have played out over the last year), it's this claim:

 _" This rule-making is what we refer to as governance."_

This conception of governance is the premise for the conclusion, what Lehdonvirta calls a "paradox":

"And this leads me to my final point, a provocation: once you address the problem of governance, you no longer need blockchain; you can just as well use conventional technology that assumes a trusted central party to enforce the rules, because you're already trusting somebody (or some organization/process) to make the rules. I call this blockchain's 'governance paradox': _once you master it, you no longer need it_."

My own analysis draws on a more expansive definition (from Introna; Saurwein et al.): [http://iqdupont.com/assets/documents/DUPONT-2017-Preprint- Al...](http://iqdupont.com/assets/documents/DUPONT-2017-Preprint-Algorithmic- Governance.pdf)

This expansiveness is necessary, as Lehdonvirta recognizes. Contracts are not just enforcement, they also encapsulate the processes of making ("rule- making"), or better, _negotiating_ contracts.

So, are we authorized to go from a rule-making notion of governance to the conclusion that once this is addressed blockchain technologies will be redundant? Lehdonvirta doesn't give us any analysis of this move, but I don't think so. Rather, we need to _recognize_ the contested forms, which are the _essence_ of governance, and then create a socio-technical structure around them. Consider: double-entry bookkeeping is just as much a technology for governance as blockchain technology (and, of course, they share a historical lineage). Does double-entry bookkeeping go away because we "address the problem"? Hardly. Rather, we need to recognize the ways that it has developed, and by whom, and for what use. Just like blockchain technologies.

</comment><comment><USER40> I agree with this in as much as I don't think cryptocurrencies are ever going to replace 'fiat' currency. That doesn't mean that they don't provide economic value or are worthless, however.

<comment><USER41> The article didn't discuss that issue.

<comment><USER14> It does if you take USA's "governance of Fed Reserve Notes" and EU "governance of Euro" as examples of the author's "governance of technology" or "governance paradox".

<comment><USER40> Yeah, I was specifically referring to the crypto ideologues who have a fundamental distrust of fiat currency and think that bitcoin somehow solves governance problems. The eth hard fork to protect the investments of developers and early adopters should have disabused people of that notion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This article pretty well sums up my overarching opinion that, at this point, bitcoin is the only actual killer app for blockchain. I'm always looking for the next kill app, but haven't seen it yet. With bitcoin, the idea of no governance or centralization is very much a feature, not a bug. When you get to other blockchain solutions (like stocks or real estate), blockchain just becomes a code word for immutable, public history, which is doable with many different technical means (not just a blockchain).

<comment><USER43> I think it makes a lot of sense to build a DNS system using contacts. Names can be auctioned off and given automatically to the highest bidder. It is also possible to set up a contract where you could trustlessly sell names. "Send $200 to an address and you will get the name". This solves the prisoners dilemma that is mentioned in the video at least for your dns addresses. There is an auction like this in progress already, and you can participate now if you like [http://ens.domains](http://ens.domains)

<comment><USER42> Ya, that's not a bad point, I guess really any completely virtual item that distributes on a first come, first serve basis could work. That's sort of a generalization of bitcoin itself (if you think of the proof of work is a first come claim on the new bitcoins).

<comment><USER43> You could do even more interesting things than that trustlessly. For example say, you own a valuable domain. You could borrow money and use the domain as collateral. If you do pay back, or stop making monthly payments the domain is automatically and trustlessly transferred to the lender. Or it can be put up for a trustless public auction with the proceeds going to lender to repay the loan and the rest to you, the ex-owner of the domain who failed to pay back his loan.

The cool thing is that it's possible to build all of this today and people are working on it right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> yoz-y I always thought of bitcoin as a commodity, not a currency. It seems to solve the same problems and follow the same rules. E.g.: a commodity (such as gold) can not be created, but it is an important feature for a currency. Without inflation it will never be a good choice for currency anyways because it will always be a more interesting to hold on it rather than use it.

<comment><USER44> If bitcoin achieved (a big if) wide adoption, it would be like keeping all your money in an index fund whenever you're not actively spending it. Its value would follow the growing economy.

<comment><USER45> Except deflation instead of inflation. Instead of sticky wages you'll be pressured to drop your hourly rates. Borrowing money would _increase_ the cost of the loan, depending on the rate of value increase, you're looking at negative interest rates. Everything about deflation makes zero sense.

<comment><USER46> You've identified who suffers and who benefits from the reversing of value positions caused by deflation vs inflation.

But you haven't explained why its "worse"? So borrowers are disadvantaged compared to lenders (savers).

And wage earners are in a better position relative to wage payers.. ? That's what I take away from your statement.

But, one's ability to buy things seems to be improved...

Should we want an inflationary economy more college-tuition, healthcare-cost- like... or computing & software-like? Continually falling prices for all things computing related have done wonders for that industry no?

Would consumers be better or worse off having to spend less on food clothing housing energy? Would they have more or less disposable income with flat or falling prices?

Ok now assume increases in those costs... better or worse off? More or less disposable income?

<comment><USER47> > But, one's ability to buy things seems to be improved...

It's only improved if there is a lot of investment and new / more products coming out. deflationary currency promotes holding on to your money so that it goes up in value, but if everyone does that there will be less products / services and the value of the currency will ultimately go down. If currency has some inflation, then it's used as a transaction currency so that you want goods rather than currency, so the product becomes the important thing. If you have too much inflation however you get way too much money for the amount of products, so you want stable inflation.

<comment><USER46> Won't interest rates be low if everyone is saving?

Won't there be more investible cash because a lower percentage of one's wages is devoted to commodities, and essentials? As well, there is less of an incentive to stockpile or "get ahead" of future price increases.

So.. more left over to invest?

Does expectation of future flat or lower prices give you confidence to plan a vacation, invest extra money, etc.. or would you prefer to worry about food, gas, and other prices going up in the future? (along with your sticky wages making your real wage go down)

In fact, I 100% agree that savings and investment are key to future growth, technology and the whole enchilada. Which is why I don't support stealth tax of inflation, or of governments debasing the currency and stealing wealth from citizens.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Takeaway conclusion is existence of a sort of upper bound on the economic potential of blockchains:

>Perhaps blockchain technologies can still deliver better technical performance, like better availability and data integrity

The supporting argument is so tight that it never even invokes the repeated failures of Bitcoin at the exchange/storage level: Mt Gox, wallets et al.

</comment><comment><USER49> A while back I wondered if networks like facebook, electrical grids should have more direct user decision making.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14293114](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14293114)

I think eventually networks need to figure out distributed decision making.

<comment><USER50> Here's[0] an interesting take on a possible way forward to achieve that, very much inline with the recent ICO trend.

In general I think the token design space is an extremely interesting one, and seeing how different models lead to different social structures and outcomes will be extremely interesting.

Of course this is not new (currently reading Debt: the first 5000 years), its just radically easier than before, to design, deploy, and use. As a result we'll see an explosion of variety, diversity, and competition, which'll be fascinating to see.

Already the differences in ICO mechanisms are extremely interesting, though they have a long way to go.

[0] [https://blog.bigchaindb.com/tokenize-the- enterprise-23d51baf...](https://blog.bigchaindb.com/tokenize-the- enterprise-23d51bafb536)

<comment><USER49> I doubt facebook does it you need tokens to buy out existing shares or something. To not get sued. Also, tokens get traded and accumulate.

There needs to be some way to manage competing interests fairly(whatever that means) and efficiently.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is an excellent analysis: insightful and to the point. I'd love to read a counter-analysis that can objectively argue against what I see as the central point here: "Blockchains still need good governance, but once you have good governance in place, you don't need a blockchain."

<comment><USER52> Here's a thought: I don't think it's black or white, governance solved or not solved. I think it's varying degrees of decentralization in governance.

Try to come up with a system that has more decentralized governance than Bitcoin.

The core developers in bitcoin don't have all the power. Coinbase doesn't have all the Power. Each user doesn't have all the power. Miners either (if they abuse their power, POW function can be changed)

So basically while bitcoin governance is not perfectly decentralized, its much better than anything else.

You can try to come up with a system where people vote. But the votes have to be collected and analyzed somewhere, centrally. So you still have central governance.

So yes, while 100% solving governance would make bitcoin useless, bitcoin can improve governance (compared to federal Reserve, for example), while providing a lot of value from this decentralization.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Blockchain already transformed economy; it brought fast international payments with small fees.

<comment><USER54> One of the reasons there are fees for international payments is to comply with the legal requirements set up by governments to monitor and control such transactions.

The cost of transferring FX wholesale is near zero. If a bitcoin based processor implements the controls, the costs will be the same as a regular payment provider.

So bitcoin can only become cheaper than tradition payments if you bypass the legally required controls.

<comment><USER55> While you're not wrong, the fees for international payments vary wildly depending on how you do it, which service or bank you use, how much you transfer etc. Which makes it hard to sell the "its about governance" line for justifying those fees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> The article ignores incentives - that the effort in trying to find a new block may be better than the double spend. You'd have to buy a big ticket item, and get really lucky as well so you have a fairly small window to catch up and get head. So bitcoin works partly because the incentives to be an honest member outweigh the potential benefit of attack vs the cost and risk of simply not winning in the window within which you can double spend.

I'd consider some of the other uses of block chain such as permission-based approaches, and the other applications like luxury goods in supply chain to prevent counterfeit goods from entering.

</comment><comment><USER57> Well, there are some improvements over existing systems (e.g. fiat money):

1\. Less costs to switch to a competitor comparing to banks and states which leads to 2\. The governance body and all influential members are really in need of public approval of their actions since that is exactly what makes a coin worthy. If they change protocol in a drastic way, the price will immediately plummet leaving them in tatters 3\. Same mechanism prevents conflicts within the community

In general I would like to see more about the role of law in economics and possible tech implementations of it (meta-protocols?)

<comment><USER33> If we're talking about "mass" adoption, which suggests consumer-level adoption?

Point #1 is exactly not what you want. It means your currency can lose value almost instantly. Fiat currencies can do this, but only rarely actually do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> The most disruptive thing cryptocurrencies will do is undermine the legal distinctions between currencies, commodities, and stocks. There's no real difference between any of them, but they are treated legally quite differently. Cryptocurrencies will flood the gaps in between these categories with so many examples that it will DoS the legal system with questions it can't answer, social adoption will outstrip courtroom resolution, and there will have to be a post-hoc reckoning with a new legal framework.

</comment><comment><USER59> Because bottom line, the only thing it improves is that there is no longer need to move the money around in armored cars, and that is not high impact in the bottomline of the economy

You lose the following: 1 - Ability control monetary policy 2 - Reduction in theft via cost in effort (same thing as with e-voting and rigging elections)

Because of that you have seen that blockchain stuff works on countries where 1 is badly handled. everywhere else nobody really cares except for the hype.

<comment><USER60> It's also convenient for purchasing illegal stuff instead of having to go trough stuff like western union (if you think BTC fees are huge I have a surprise for you). Surprisingly acquiring bitcoin was the hardest part of acquiring controlled substances (coinbase transaction failed twice with my credit card and had a tedious registration process requiring photo, scan of ID, etc. etc. - ended up buying from localbitcoin using bank transfer but it felt risky and the markup was considerable) - the rest was as simple as using a online shop and it shipping to home address - even got free shipping for a bigger order :)

<comment><USER59> You are right of course, i would argue though that that use case is a deterrent of mainstream adoption rather than an incentive.

Edit: proper english.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> I think that the core value crypocurrencies and blockchains provide is a distributed system of trust. I also think that we people in developed nations have been spoiled by our trustworthy institutions, relatively speaking. I don't know too many people in US/UK/AUS/JP hesitant to put money away in the consumer banks, take out mortgages, or file disputes in the state courts. Those systems work well enough, with acceptable speeds for most use cases.

While crypto technologies are improving, they have some glaring drawbacks:

\- The recent BTC confirmation time (transaction processing duration) was in days[1].

\- The consumer loses significant protections because transactions are final.

\- On a broader note, no centralized controls or responsible entities means no one to point fingers at when something goes wrong.

\- There are very steep learning curves for all participating parties.

These are all being worked on through technology improvements and new blockchains, but they're still issues that prevent blockchains from displacing existing systems. I think they could one day change everything in an Innovator's Dilemma fashion, but not anytime soon (5-20 years). There is already staunch opposition to using clearly superior technologies due to cultural factors, for example:

\- Americans won't use chip readers partly because the magnetic strip was already widespread[2].

\- Developed nations don't use mobile chat operating systems such as WeChat partly because they already had laptops[3].

So in the case of blockchains, not only is there an overwhelming opposing cultural force, but also they happen to make inroads in sensitive industries such as finance/contracts, and the technology is not superior on many levels. This would make adoption very difficult.

Where it will work

However, some people don't have such great institutions. Look at how successful BTC has been in turmoil-ridden South American nations such as Venezuela and Argentina[3]. The inflation is out of control, and consumers don't trust any of the banks or institutions. In this environment, the blockchain is leaps and bounds better than anything else that these consumers have access to, so it's immensely valuable. You'd be willing to wait several days for transaction clearance. You wouldn't care that the transfer is final. You'll do whatever awkward dance it takes to operate and secure a Bitcoin wallet. There's no better alternative, and financial asset security is important.

I think characteristics of an ideal market for blockchain technology today could be:

\- Very low trust among participants.

\- No trusted central authority.

\- Expensive, long, or nonexistent arbitration cycles.

\- High transaction costs.

Its most compelling value is the provision of trust where there is none. An example where this might work well is in the specification and mediation of international contracts for small businesses. There is currently little accountability after getting burned in an international transaction with a small entity, as a small entity. If there were a standard trusted registry of company reputation, transaction histories, and contracts, then it could go a long way to building systems of trust that enable more fluid trade afar.

[1] [https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation- time?timespa...](https://blockchain.info/charts/avg-confirmation- time?timespan=30days&showDataPoints=true&start=2017-06-02)

[2] [http://www.digitalcheck.com/emv-will-usa-be- ready/](http://www.digitalcheck.com/emv-will-usa-be-ready/)

[3] [https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/01/it-might-be-time-to- stop-l...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/06/01/it-might-be-time-to-stop-looking- for-the-wechat-of-the-west/)

[4] [https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/28/the-secret- dangerous-...](https://reason.com/archives/2016/11/28/the-secret-dangerous- world-of)

<comment><USER62> The "Look at the popularity of Bitcoin in [country]" argument always turns out to be made-up rubbish.

I did actually try tracking the Venezuela hype to its source. You have linked the Reason article as a reference, but if you actually read the thing, its title is "The Secret, Dangerous World of Venezuelan Bitcoin Mining: How cryptocurrency is turning socialism against itself" and the article itself is an unhinged libertarian polemic fiercely advocating Bitcoin as a way to avert the SPECTRE of SOCIALISM and REGULATION. One of their interviewees had been arrested for stealing electricity to mine bitcoins, which the author describes as a "government crackdown" on "freedom" because "bitcoin mining is arguably the best possible use of electricity in Venezuela".

A story in The Guardian in the wake of the Reason story appears to be where the rest of the press picked it up. It spoke of some Venezuelans relying on Bitcoin for "basic necessities" \- and was based on interviews with a Bitcoin exchange owner, one of his employees and two of his customers. The author had previously written similar stories of Argentina and bitcoin. [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/venezuela...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/dec/16/venezuela- bitcoin-economy-digital-currency-bolivars)

These two questionably-founded stories were echoed and elaborated upon by the rest of the press, including - amongst _many_ others - the Washington Post claiming that Bitcoin mining is "big business" in Venezuela (which it in no way is), the New York Times claiming that Bitcoin has "gained prominence" _because_ of Venezuela, and BBC News repeating claims from a Bitcoin boosterism blog - all of this being factoids repeated in a media game of telephone.

The Venezuelan volume on LocalBitcoins at the time was on the order of 300-400 BTC/week, which isn't nothing, but is negligible in the context of a whole country, and tracked fairly closely with LocalBitcoins usage in other countries.

 _tl;dr_ no, Venezuela isn't a thing either.

<comment><USER61> Thank you for your research into this! I found it difficult to locate good sources too, and that fact is worthy of more disclaimer than I gave. I think you're right in giving any claimed causality in new territory a good hard knock.

The rate of usage growth could give more insights than just current volumes:

[https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins/VEF](https://coin.dance/volume/localbitcoins/VEF)

It could indeed be just a blip, but would you agree that there exist reasonable incentives for usage of DLTs in unstable economies?

<comment><USER62> > It could indeed be just a blip, but would you agree that there exist > reasonable incentives for usage of DLTs in unstable economies?

tl;dr no. Cryptocurrencies (we're not talking about the general euphemism "DLT", your question is about cryptocurrencies and specifically Bitcoin) don't solve any of the problems people have in that situation. When _every story_ about "Bitcoin in [troubled country]" has turned out to be made-up rubbish, this leads me to consider all such claims wishful thinking on the part of holders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Interesting points about enforcement.

But I think the real barrier to adoption is that most people don't mind using centralized systems. If their Visa card works when they swipe it, they don't think beyond that. If it's easier for the end user when systems are centralized, breaking people out of this mindset will be very difficult.

<comment><USER64> I'm fairly pro privacy, but where it comes to currency, I don't see the benefit.

I certainly don't see the benefit of burning the amount of energy the average bitcoin transaction is now responsible for, when (as you say) I have Visa.

And with Visa I can charge-back if I get ripped off. Bitcoin is, AFAICT an actively worse proposition for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> There are currencies with governance built in: PIVX and DASH are the two main exampled I know of.

Basically the nodes that have a stake in the system are allowed to vote on the direction the project is going.

My personal impression is that currently this model is still very rudimentary, but in the future I could still an almost autonomous system taking off.

</comment><comment><USER66> the article is spot on when it comes to Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) but misses the point of Bitcoin. Many in the community cite the lack of governance as a strength of Bitcoin. It's resilience is a virture because it becomes difficult to corrupt, unlike centralized governance of traditional payment methods.

<comment><USER23> > Many in the community cite the lack of governance as a strength of Bitcoin.

Bitcoin has opaque governance; it does not have a _lack_ of governance.

> It's resilience is a virture because it becomes difficult to corrupt

It is not at all difficult to corrupt. (Arguably, since it's fundamentally based on "them what have they gold, make the rules", it's foundationally corrupt and takes nothing _additional_ to corrupt. But, in any case, all it takes to corrupt it is will and money.)

<comment><USER66> opaque? have you seen the bitcoin dev mailing list? or the github issue list?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> I agree with the article yet the article fails to address a large benefit of DLTs, reducing transaction/3rd party fees. A ~2% reduction in costs is still enormous at scale.

Another benefit that is overlooked is adaptation. Once mature, creativity and innovation will happen faster with DLTs.

</comment><comment><USER68> I do not believe that a deregulated system can catch to massive economic scale because there is a trust involved with currency.

The minute a currency is distributed with no regulation it can be monopolized and its price shifted up and down by the power of the monopoly.

</comment><comment><USER69> How did blockchains start to pick up the same grammatical quirk that "chiropractic" has? The blockchain, a blockchain, blockchains, blockchain technology, fine. "so many people are so excited about blockchain today"? Bizarre.

</comment><comment><USER70> Bitcoin and the rest of cryptos need an IETF-style organism issuing standards and guidelines... that could solve many of the governance problems, including forking dramas (SegWit, DAO, etc)

</comment><comment><USER71> I pose this as a question as much as a statement: Bitcoin does not have to _solve_ the governance problem. It need merely _perform some functions better_ than a fiat currency.

Consider economists' Taylor Rule. It represents an effort to impost constraints on a bureaucratic institution and how _people_ manage the dollar. Cool, we pass a law called the Taylor Rule. Now just don't enforce it. People who want stuff are hard to constrain.

In other words, the Bitcoin community doesn't have to be uncompromising and immutable, like its technology, for the currency to succeed—it just has to do _better_ than its alternative (even in narrow applications).

Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER72> Black and grey uses, the financial sector is pretty happy with this tool and cyber-criminals too, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER73> this is a really great article, because it highlight a very important dialectic that many blockchain enthusiasts, developers, entrepreneurs, and speculators don't acknoweldge. I would however, suggest that the issue of governance is not an "all-or-nothing" choice. Probably some of the blockchain technologies that try to do things like "link to a central bank", will suffer from a difficulty in establishing product differentiation from traditional currencies and transaction schemes; but the blockchain technologies that live on the more distant side of the spectrum (providing an, if imperfect, implementation of distributed trust) like the original bitcoin, will survive.

</comment><comment><USER74> So the worry is that you need govt courts and police to enforce rules? That's not a great argument. The number of private police today is far greater than govt employed ones. Most international trade disputes are settled by private arbitration and not the govt courts. What's the real worry?

<comment><USER75> The problem is that at the point where there is a trusted party to arbitrate disputes why do you need a blockchain? It seems ironic that it seems like we need some trusted governance over a system that is literally built upon the idea of distributed trust.</comment></comment>


I got a web app source code by chance - <AUTHOR> Hi Guys, I have this question over my head from almost 2 months. A day by chance was looking at Github and some repositories. and looking for interesting projects. By chance i found that an actual very successeful startup have it's code available (not priavte) and this project is exactly what i was looking to do to solve a big problem. Well, i doenloaded the code and run it, to confirm, (i through that its not possible that this code is actually the interesting web app code, but could just a similar naming that's it). But NO. After download, dig in the code try to setup the environment and instale the modules, it worked and i saw exatly that the app that im running is the same available online. and it's actually paid and growing fast.. what i have to do here?? tell them about the stuff? use it to build another app that i manage to do with my vision?? i really see where this app can go because it's in my domain.. Cheers, please never judge :-) <comment><USER2> > use it to build another app that i manage to do with my vision?

What are the COPYING terms for the code in the repository? Regardless of whether it's a paid app it's entirely possible (likely!) that the code is on github to encourage folks like yourself to use and extend it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Man it's not a free app its a paid app. As i said they just forgot to put it private... so forsure they can sue me if i use it. I think i will tell them about this issue..</comment></comment>


Ghost in the locks – Hotel room locks can be hacked - <AUTHOR> https://www.f-secure.com/en/web/business_global/electronic-lock-systems-are-vulnerable <comment><USER2> In case you're wondering why this doesn't get the attention and/or discussion you think it deserves, the story has been submitted a few times recently. Here are most of them:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16959293](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16959293)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16932581](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16932581) <\- Discussion

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16930508](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16930508)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16929857](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16929857)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16929279](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16929279)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16928496](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16928496)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16923861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16923861)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16923661](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16923661)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921999](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921999)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921289](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921289)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921237](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16921237)

Not the same, but closely related:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16952875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16952875)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you,didn't know. But I did post a link to the actual write-up not a news article citing it.

<comment><USER2> You're right, and I might have been a bit quick on the trigger. In this sort of case there needs to be something that highlights this particular submission as being different. Unfortunately the otherwise reasonable policy of always using the article's own headline fights against the idea of the submission title actually saying why this submission is important and/or different. What I do in (the rare) cases like this is immediately add a comment saying why this submission is not like all the others.

Sometimes it works.</comment></comment></comment>


Helios Bars: The arrival of the smart bike - <AUTHOR> http://www.humansinvent.com/#!/12332/helios-bars-the-arrival-of-the-smart-bike/

<comment><USER2> These people don't seem to be very pragmatic or legal cyclists:

> 0-5mph is red, 5-10 is yellow, 10-15 is green

Everyone should know that red is the only acceptable color for rear-facing bike lights. Green is absurd. Green tells cars to GO.

<comment><USER3> I don't need my rear lights to be "smart." I just need them to be as bright as possible. And yes, red.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is a non-solution to a non-problem, invented by a non-cyclist.

The first and most obvious issue is that it isn't an effective anti-theft solution. Professional bicycle thieves use vans and target components as well as whole bikes. It takes them about fifteen seconds to remove a set of handlebars - today they do this to quickly steal the STI brake/gear levers (which are often worth several hundred dollars). A GPS tracker would only be effective if it was hidden or permanently attached to the frame.

The line "Imagine gauging your speed without having to read a display or pull out your phone!" seems farcical, given that handlebar-mounted bicycle speedometers have been around for decades and cost less than $20.

Using non-red rear lights is illegal in most jurisdictions and not wise anywhere.

The stated battery life is just seven hours.

Perhaps most grievously, the handlebar-stem assembly is completely non- adjustable and one-size-fits-none. Existing handlebars with an integrated stem are marketed solely for racing, but are available in many different sizes. To cover the entire range of road bikes, you'd need thirty or forty different sizes.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is also a Chicago startup that has come up with a solution: [http://bikespike.com/](http://bikespike.com/). They just finished a successful Kickstarter of 150k+

<comment><USER6> The nice thing about Helios's GPS is that it's built into the handlebars, whereas BikeSpike mounts externally, making it much easier from a thief to destroy before stealing the bike.

I wonder what technology these use. There's an older stem mounted GPS from a UK company that uses a 2G network, which makes me skeptical about it's useful life. Bikes last for decades, but 2G networks will be replaced much sooner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Similar technology is available for several years now. Here are some local guys used it to actively catch bike thieves and made a video series about how it worked out in practice. Here's the episode detailing how they recovered a stolen bike in London: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obqEJVsWq8o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obqEJVsWq8o)

</comment><comment><USER8> There's a GPS devices welded to the bike frame? Congratulations, you'll get the bike frame back.

</comment><comment><USER9> Bike tires are the most frequently stolen part by thieves who won't bother with the whole bike.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wait, how do you find out location after the bike was stolen? GSM?

<comment><USER11> You put a pay-as-you-go SIM card in it, and you can text it and it'll text its coordinates back.

That suggests, though, if anyone knows your bike's number they could track it everywhere. I'm not sure I'd want that feature.

<comment><USER10> Can somebody point me to similar low cost, low power GSM modules?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How do you brake?…

<comment><USER13> You need to add normal road bike style brakes and bar tape. Same goes for shifting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The smart bike that can be tracked even if it's stolen.</comment>


7 Depressing Royalty Checks From The Music Industry - <AUTHOR> http://m.aux.tv/news/100455-7-royalty-cheques-that-ll-make-you-lose-your-faith-in-the-music-industry <comment><USER2> I suppose this one will keep coming around and around.

Streaming music site royalties need to be compared with radio station play royalties (after the number of people listening to the radio station has been taken into account). Notional comparisons to album sales (or individual song sales on say iTunes) are spurious.</comment>


Generation of Over a Million of Watts of Power in the Volume of a Coffee Cup - <AUTHOR> http://brilliantlightpower.com/news-release-july-11-2016/ <comment><USER2>
      The power released by the conversion of hydrogen atoms from water
      molecules in to a lower energy form called "Hydrino" or dark matter
      is manifest as brilliant-light emitting plasma wherein the light is
      uniquely and extraordinarily essentially all high-energy light in
      the extreme ultraviolet

I would classify this as "astonishingly unlikely".

<comment><USER3> Seconded.</comment></comment>


Show HN: I made an offline, open source MacOS password manager in a month - <AUTHOR> https://allyourpasswords.com <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/swlkr/allyourpasswords/blob/master/allyou...](https://github.com/swlkr/allyourpasswords/blob/master/allyourpasswords/EditViewController.swift#L156)

<comment><AUTHOR> The app generates random passwords for you, I'm unsure why you linked this

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://dev.to/swlkr](https://dev.to/swlkr) should've added that link as this is where it's the most interesting.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah dang it. Yeah you're right. I submitted again with the dev.to link, but no luck</comment></comment>