Facebook plans cryptocurrency debut - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/06/facebook-libra-launch/ <comment><USER2> Can anyone explain what the point of a pegged cryptocurrency is? Since you are dependent on the issuing entity to honour the stated peg, why not just have your balance be an entry in a regular database maintained by that entity? What exactly does the blockchain gain you here?

One thing it does _not_ get you is censorship resistance. If the central authority wants to take away coins from a wallet, all it needs to do is to simply state that it will not honour the peg for coins originating from that wallet. This can be tracked by FIFO, dilution or any other stated accounting principle, and renders the balance in that wallet worthless.

<comment><USER3> >Can anyone explain what the point of a pegged cryptocurrency is?

What was the point of arcades taking your quarters and issuing you tokens for the machines? Why not just allow the machines to take your quarters?

The idea is for the issuer to take real money from you and issue you Monopoly money which the issuer can track and control. In a worst case scenario the issuer can make up new rules (change their terms and conditions on you) or declare bankruptcy/dissolve and not honor the redemption of your stable coins at all.

<comment><USER4> But that doesn't really answer the question being asked. If the cryptocurrency is completely controlled by a centralized authority who has absolute rights over the system, why bother with the technical and cognitive hurdles of using a blockchain? A standard ledger in a centralized database is more than adequate for that task, and much easier to maintain.

<comment><USER5> It puts their currency in the same semantic basket as Bitcoin and Ethereum. The effort to give these other currencies legitimacy also gives Facebook's currency legitimacy; many people who support these other currencies will also support Facebook's. If Facebook's currency is attacked, it becomes (in some sense) an attack on all cryptocurrencies.

<comment><USER6> Come on, I'd say it gives the currency an aura of bullshit.

Real currencies (USD, EUR, ..) are stored by visa / mastercard in regular databases, so why not facebook's currency ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> From Facebook's perspective, the advantage is that everyone has already forfeited any expectation of privacy wrt financial transactions, since they're recorded on a public ledger. They would be able to link certain transaction events (i.e., ones that happen over Messenger or other Facebook properties) to real identities, so this project will give them tons of data to mine

<comment><USER8> This made me a little sick to my stomach. I thought I was jaded, but imagine the worlds economy running in FB.

<comment><USER9> They probably want to be the West's WeChat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I will revisit this thread in 2021 just to see how wrong everyone was. FB has billions of users that interact with its product everyday. People who make plans, attend events, split all sort of bills.

A borderless _stablecoin_ will be a gamechanger. It can fuel commerce but above that it will kill many middlemen and rightly so.

<comment><USER11> A payments system on Facebook makes a ton of sense and would be very useful. I just don't get why it has to be cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER12> Two things I can think of:

\- you can get transparency (the entire ledger must be public, so you reduce the risk of many kids of internal fraud and manipulation.)

\- you can use these coins outside the facebook ecosystem -- I can't think of immediate value here, but I can see a long play where Facebook can turn into a bank

<comment><USER13> This is the first and only comment I've read that actually gives credence to the idea of FB making it as a cryptocurrency, but it still falls short of a simple idea and gives FB too much credit for being an "open" player. FB is the issuer, why can't they just provide APIs to their ledger and APIs for settlement so it can be used outside of their direct ecosystem, but still allows them full control? FB wants to keep people in their ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A few points:

\- some pegged currencies are still decentralised (e.g. MakerDAO) - they rely solely on smart contracts \- even with a centralised peg, you have to trust an organisation to keep the collateral, but the contract can state that anyone can move the funds around, so the managing organisation cannot just remove funds at will

Also, compared to a centralised database, you have an interoperability aspect - if it's just an organisation keeping everyone's balances, it's hard to make those balances interact with the rest of the blockchain ecosystem (e.g. how do you participate in an ICO, if the crypto balances are stored in one system, and token balances are stored in another? implement APIs for every single one of them?)

<comment><USER15> MakerDAO is not decentralised, simply because the ETH/USD price feed isn't decentralised. If the servers providing the feed get hacked, say goodbye to your ETH collateral.

<comment><USER16> They might integrate with ChainLink, a decentralized oracle network: [https://chain.link](https://chain.link)

<comment><USER17> That's just "decentralization" by obscurity. (emphasis on the quotes)

That aside, the main problem isn't centralization but rather the trust level. The point is to not have to trust someone isn't serving you the false data. Contracts must be created and ran only when the data can be cryptographically verified to be true.

There are no trustless oracles if any of the required data are outside of the settlement system (e.x. blockchain). Even when the data are inside, you still have cases of collusion that make things problematic.

People are trying to sell something that's close to impossible. Especially when they try to add infinite flexibility on it. Even with the currently low stakes there have been incidents of "oracles" getting compromised. There are several strategies to try and camouflage a centralized oracle to a faux decentralized entity but eventually if stakes get high enough, your entity will become a target and it'll become once again obvious what's happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ultimately, the goal seems to be "one currency to rule them all." The peg may prove necessary only initially, to gain confidence.

Unlike most other currencies, Facebook's new currency will be readily available to and easily usable by virtually everyone everywhere, and it will likely have very low transaction costs -- much lower than those of most financial intermediaries. You will be able to use it as easily from New York as from Timbuktu, bypassing the inefficiencies and high fees of the legacy financial system.

Why use traditional nation-backed money when you can click a button on your phone instead?

Facebook seems to be gradually morphing into a sort of _planet-wide nation_.

<comment><USER19> > Why use traditional nation-backed money when you can click a button on your > phone instead?

Wait, you can't do that with your nation-backed currency? In Australia, I can literally open my bank app and send money to any Australian account with just a phone number and they receive it in 30 seconds or so with no fees...

Yeah, international transfers are a little harder, but for domestic transfers it's super easy.

<comment><USER20> Here in the US, moving money is a huge PITA. Unless you both bank at the same bank, money usually takes days to move. And banking at the same bank is no guarantee it will happen faster.

Private party transactions up into the thousands of dollars (say, buying a used car) generally require cash.

It's incredibly archaic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > with zero fees via Facebook products including Messenger and WhatsApp

reminds me of the classic "If You're Not Paying For It, You Become The Product"

edit: the prototypical crypto (bitcoin) has fees as the final (after there's no more new btc) incentive for miners to process transactions. but this doesn't?

probably we'll have to look at their white paper but if Facebook is the only actor running this network why make it a cryptocurrency at all?

<comment><USER22> > but if Facebook is the only actor running this network why make it a > cryptocurrency at all?

They're selling a seat at the governance table for $10 million. I suspect in an effort to put this new token in the decentralized/not a security bucket the SEC views ETH. That allows them to avoid registration and the enforcement headache Kik is currently dealing with. Quite clever on Facebook's part. Zuckerberg is smart enough to give up a bit of control and toe the line ("decentralized"... among his Wall Street friends) rather than retain complete control and run head-first into a regulatory brick wall. FTA:

> Facebook is in talks to create an independent foundation to oversee its > cryptocurrency, The Information reports. It's asking companies to pay $10 > million to operate a node that can validate transactions made with its > cryptocurrency in exchange for a say in governance of the token. It's > possible that node operators could benefit financially too. By introducing a > level of decentralization to the governance of the project, Facebook may be > able to avoid regulation related to it holding too much power over a global > currency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A cryptocurrency that violates one of the main tenants of cryptocurrencies. The fact is doesn't require a centralized authority. This is basically Twitch bits and shouldn't be classified as a cryptocurrency. As others have stated, probably the only reason to use one is because an existing blockchain can simply be used under a new brand.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Didn't Kik try and do something similar as well and came under fire from the SEC?

<comment><USER24> The main issue with SEC is that everything that claims or "wink wink nudge nudge" implies that you should buy The Thing from them because it's going to jump in value is essentially an investment proposal that's potentially fraudulent and thus needs to meet SEC regulations.

Stablecoins, where you explicitly state that it's never ever going to appreciate and make you richer by just holding it, don't meet that criteria so SEC doesn't (and isn't allowed to) regulate them.

IRS/tax issues, and AML/KYC (anti money laundering/know your customer) laws still are a potential issue, but that's not handled by SEC.

<comment> 52-6F-62 Thanks for the clarification, both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I don't think this will be particularly successful. We already have a variety of ways to send money. Yes Facebook is big, but so is, say, Apple and it's Apple Pay functionality.

I don't know what use case this solves that isn't fairly competitive already although it will probably have a bitcoin style valuation bubble. It's also sort of capped in its utility. If it overshadows national government currencies... the governments will be incentivized to block it. That was true of Bitcoin but it's doubly true of Facebook. And Facebook has to abide by laws so it can't just quietly work regardless of regulations like other crypto.

And what can I buy with this? If I need to convert to dollars, is an easy facecoin swap plus a facecoin to dollars swap really be more convenient?

Edit: on Apple Pay, I'm pretty sure you can send cash. But I don't know, because I haven't ever had the need to do this... which is I suppose my point.

<comment><USER26> > it will probably have a bitcoin style valuation bubble

It's a stable coin so it can't have such a bubble. It's main utility will probably only be cross border p2p payments for countries that allow it.

<comment><USER25> That doesn't feel like something that's useful for messenger integration? Messenger integration implies to me local transactions for minor debts and splitting fares and what not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Facebook's blockchain will most likely be a consortium of corporate validators. In this case you could say that the blockchain is "just" a normal distributed append-only hash-linked ledger with public verifiable records, but nowadays the more concise term for that is "blockchain."

<comment><USER2> Every git repository counts as a blockchain by that definition.

<comment><USER27> Indeed you could even think of them as embodying the "proof of work" principle in that you naturally look for the branch with the most work done to find the true Schelling point fork for your own contributions.

(By the way, I often see these two points in the same thread: "blockchains should be replaced with centralized SQL databases" and "Git repositories are just like blockchains" which makes me wonder if Git repositories also ought to be replaced with centralized SQL databases.)

<comment><USER2> > blockchains should be replaced with centralized SQL databases

Blockchains whose tokens are subject to the authority of a central issuer _anyway_ should be replaced with centralized SQL databases. Bitcoin/namecoin/etc. can't be replaced with centralized databases. FBCoin can, as can any blockchain that is supposed to track meatspace resources(since physical resources are subject to the authority of the local government/men with guns anyway).

> Git repositories are just like blockchains

Nope, I don't consider this to be true. Blockchains are supposed to have decentralized consensus and allow arbitrary nodes to propose changes.

<comment><USER27> The purpose of using a blockchain scheme to issue a centralized liability is probably to increase trust in the system due to the public verifiability of issuance and transfers.

<comment><USER2> Seems to me that "trust" is the last thing the average joe would associate cryptocurrency with. A database with a public audit trail might be a better idea if you want that, but that certainly doesn't sound as trendy and exciting as "blockchain".

<comment><USER27> Indeed, the blockchain concept is more exciting and understandable for a lot of people, so in that sense branding their consortium-controlled cryptographically verifiable ledger as a blockchain seems like a good PR decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> At some point the "blockchain not Bitcoin" crowd will wake up to the fact that Bitcoin's value proposition is censorship resistance. Nobody can block you from making a payment. The idea is still revolutionary, as evidenced by the large number of people for whom Bitcoin still doesn't look like anything (other than maybe something scary or bad).

Whatever Facebook comes up with will be the antithesis of censorship resistant. There is no point to buy or use it because it solves no problems for regular people.

Which brings us to why Facebook is bothering. For the simple reason that governments print currencies. Control (through censorship) and self enrichment ( through inflation).

This only works by compelling people to use the currency. My prediction is that Phase 2 of this ridiculous plan is to force people on Facebook to use the token while gradually cutting third party payment processors out.

<comment><USER29> " There is no point to buy or use it because it solves no problems for regular people."

I disagree with that statement. It does solve the problem of getting paid through facebook (which a lot of people do and use). It surely promotes and carves Facebook deeper into their lives, but it solves a problem.

Im not for this offering, but its not hard for me to see why it has a chance of mass aadoption. Hopefully it fails.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> So it's a cryptocurrency that's basically the equivalent of a gift card or Chuck-E-Cheese token? How is this different from in-game currency that isn't backed by Crypto?

Seems that FB is just riding the buzzword wave.

<comment><USER31> Yes but it can still be useful. Facebook is basically planning to compete directly with amazon in ecommerce space. In the future, you won't even have to leave facebook to buy something. The merchant will be able to process orders directly through facebook.

Also my guess is informal trading markets will form using this facebook currency. If everyone is using the same form of payment then cross boarder trade becomes much easier. No more foreign exchange hassles. I've already seen it happen with stuff like amazon gift cards but recently amazon removed the ability to check the balance of amazon gift cards. I have already moved away from accepting amazon gift cards for this very reason. If facebook's coin is widely used and can be used to buy a lot of different stuff then I would definitely shift my informal trading to the facebook coin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm not sure how anyone has even the slightest trust in Facebook anymore.

Why is it that people still use the service? Is convenience really that powerful?

<comment><USER33> I have exactly zero trust in Facebook but I have had so many irritating moments and missed opportunities due to ditching my account years ago that I am seriously considering reopening it again.

The main aspect I'm considering these days is that I'm not important in the grand scheme of things so there's no rational reason to increase difficulty in things that do really matter such as having memorable experiences while I can in exchange for privacy or to make some statement. In a sense, I will have privacy anyway out of just being a data point out of billions.

It's not that Facebook is convenient but rather that not having it can be inconvenient depending on your context.

<comment><USER34> You have zero trust in Facebook, and Facebook has zero trust in you. Perfect use case for blockchain, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Just another fancy token... not a real currency. The only global digital currency that has a future is bitcoin.

<comment><USER36> Are you serious?! Bitcoin is the most unfit one. It's like saying VHS has a future, when everybody's happier with Bluray.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> If you're interested in conspiracy theories, this may be a way for Facebook to circumvent GDPR, since financial data needs to be kept for at least 10 years. Once you make any trade using this currency, you won't be able to request deletion of personal data, since it's required to be kept as financial information.

<comment><USER38> why couldn't they delete everything but your trade data?

<comment><USER37> At the minimum they'd need to store your name and address, probably birthdate too. It would just complicate the whole process of leaving Facebook.

<comment><USER38> so they'd delete everything but that. the rest of the leaving process would be the same (I recently did it myself, it wasn't too bad, but more annoying than I'd like).

don't get me wrong, i'm no fan of facebook and their data practices, but i don't agree with what you said above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Okay, so like, I'll defend them on this in principle. That said, can you address, like, you know, the myriad scandals you have BEFORE doing something ELSE? It's a bad look.

<comment><USER40> What scandals have they not addressed?

<comment><USER41> Probably depends on what you define as 'addressed'...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The most logical thing for Facebook would be to create something similar to the Chinese payment systems Alipay and WeChat Pay, bound directly to your Facebook account and maybe even issuing credit to some accounts. Completely different from a pseudonymous cash-like cryptocurrency like Bitcoin or Tether.

<comment><USER43> Those are single-market, single-currency products no? Facebook wants one coin to serve all it's 2.4bn users - a larger user base than USD I might add.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I think the angle here is international blockchain Venmo with a goal to convince the non-destitute Facebook holdouts to finally sign up so that they can commerce.

For the record I doubt that will work. The early adopters will be scammers and people duped into thinking this is their get rich quick opportunity.

<comment><USER45> > The early adopters will be scammers and people duped into thinking this is > their get rich quick opportunity.

It's a stablecoin. There's no get rich opportunity.

<comment><USER46> If it really is pegged to a basket of multiple currencies that makes it a bit of a forex instrument, not just a 1:1 exchange. Someone, somewhere could probably make a bit of money on mispricing or market movements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Oh hell, I was excited until I read this "Team: Facebook's blockchain project is overseen by former PayPal President and VP of Facebook Messenger David Marcus." I just can't see leadership being good for Crypto if his tenure at Paypal is any indicator.

</comment><comment><USER48> And here I thought that the zuccoins in the last FacebookCTF was an obvious joke.

<comment><USER49> Were there flags that were supposedly "zuckcoins" or something similar?

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Facebook will be able to pair transaction data (consumer, product, cost, merchant) with their entire social graph. They can then offer licenses to run nodes with the ability to access all that data.

</comment><comment><USER51> My main curiosity with this is whether or not self-custody will be an option, or if it will be a hybridized Venmo/Blockhain implementation that is limited to the FB app as the only wallet.

</comment><comment><USER52> Payment system built into Facebook will be incredibly successful. Most small businesses don't even bother with a website, nowadays a Facebook group and Instagram account is enough - so it's only natural to process payments there as well.

However, it is not going to damage Bitcoin in any way. Main use case for Bitcoin is buying drugs. No one is going to be paying for drugs with a currency tied to their real-world identity.

</comment><comment><USER53> I find it funny that bitcoin fails to do what it was created to do and that people are so invested in it they can't change it or let it die. You can't buy a cup of coffee without paying large confirmation fees or delaying the transaction for day to weeks. There was talk about decentralizing smaller transactions to ease up on that but that defeats the whole purpose of bitcoin.

<comment> onion-soup >You can't buy a cup of coffee without paying large confirmation fees or delaying the transaction for day to weeks

Yes you can. On BSV which is the legacy bitcoin

<comment><USER54> Hahahah!

Let me know when Craig Wright _actually_ signs the genesis block, and cryptographicly proves that he is Satoshi, and does so _publicly_ in a way that I can personally verify.

When that happens, I will give you 1000$ worth of BSV.

It won't happen though.

<comment> onion-soup Regardless if he is satoshi or not my statement is still correct: on BSV isntant transactions work and it scales to visa levels today. Oh, and he doesn't owe you any proof.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> > It could be used to offer low or no-fee payments between friends or > remittance of earnings to familys from migrant workers abroad who are often > gouged by money transfer services.

Doesn't Transferwise already fill this niche? These days you can send several hundred dollars to and from the US for around $2-4 in fees, whereas the fees used to be $40-60 from traditional banks or Western Union.

<comment><USER56> So you're saying you understand the value proposition and that it's been successful elsewhere, but you don't understand why Facebook would want to do it, or why it might make sense for the company who already has messaging apps on billions of phones?

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Am I the only one concerned about giving even more information to Facebook about my spending?

</comment><comment><USER58> I have long been skeptical of cryptocurrencies, but I think that such beliefs are rooted more in crappy misapplications and hype then reality. Can anyone link some sources that may be able to change my mind?

</comment><comment><USER59> Who knew back in 1988 that what the Economist predicted would come true?

[https://i.imgur.com/mWj0d3f.png](https://i.imgur.com/mWj0d3f.png)

<comment><USER60> Though I think they were predicting a currency that would replace national currencies in the manner of the Euro which I can't see Facebook's doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> How do you think the community standards and cryptocurrency are going to interact? If Facebook deplatforms you, do they take your zuccbucks?

</comment><comment><USER62> What is the best way to profit from all this crypto hype, as a rational person who's convinced all coins will eventually go to zero?

<comment><USER63> Getting involved is risky - even if you are right (and I think you are), the price could still increase by a large amount for a long time before sense reasserts itself.

As Keynes apparently did not say: "The market can stay irrational a lot longer than you can stay solvent."

If you hit your trading / credit limits you could lose a lot of money despite being right in the long run.

And as Keynes definitely did say, "In the long run, we are all dead."

<comment><USER31> Pretty sure facebook coin is a stable coin. You cant make money trading it. You can only make money by using it for trading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> Not sure how they can solve the 51% attack in the beginning when you have massive asic farms ready to roll in an instance

<comment><USER65> You have to pay $10 million, and presumably enter into some contracts / business arrangements, to run a full node

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> So it's basically just a virtual currency a la Twitch Bits, Riot Points, old Xbox Points etc. but running on blockchain

</comment><comment><USER67> So to summarize, the Facebook plan might look like this: (IANAL, so please correct me)

\- Create a global currency that can only be used by FB users and through FB apps.

\- Invest a billion in pegging the currency to make it stable and position it as the unchallenged WorldMoney™, but it will eventually carry its own weight in the long term.

\- Collect direct purchase information like crazy, their ultimate wet dream (I know GDPR is not circumvented by the taxes thing, but it's as simple as asking "Can I track your purchases?" and people will simply say yes.)

\- Implement this scheme as a blockchain to dodge antitrust laws (or whatever applies when you become a worldwide financial entity) by distributing the operation/management/governance among interested parties.

\- Even receive some millions from said companies to hold that power in the first place.

\- Still hold the real power over the implementation at the end of the day, but not the accountability.

\- Dodge taxes like crazy wherever you can, charge fees whenever you want, etc.

\- Make users comply to whatever conditions you want because at some point it will become mandatory to have a FB account.

Am I missing something?

EDIT: - Pay their employees and finance their worldwide operation with monopoly money.

</comment><comment><USER68> Will there be any financial advantage to owning Libra coins (or whatever they'll be called) early?

</comment><comment><USER50> This should be blocked by lawmakers if they are serious about their recent tech monopoly chatter

</comment><comment><USER69> "Facebook plans gift card system"

</comment><comment> m-i-l To all the cryptocurrency devotees dreaming of a new world cryptocurrency displacing existing government-backed central banks - be careful what you wish for, it just might come true. This might be the next phase of surveillance capitalism, like Orwell except driven by a private corporation for profit rather than accountable governments for "the greater good".

<comment><USER70> You say that as if that's not what they want.

<comment> m-i-l Well given the pseudoanonymous nature of the original cryptocurrency, and its popularity for illegal activities, I would assume not. But maybe it is more about rampant capitalism and maximise-personal-profit-at-whatever-cost nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> SEC: we are going to fine Kik alot of money for unauthorized ICO

Facebook: hold my beer

<comment><USER51> This is not an ICO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> The biggest nonsense I've ever heard.

</comment><comment><USER72> Is there anything more here than a payment system?

</comment><comment><USER73> I remember reading about company money in history books. Looks like we're going back in time.

</comment><comment><USER74> Facebucks? Rhymes with...

</comment><comment><USER75> More and more I get the feeling that the majority of the HN crowd are FB employees.

Any other post about crypto is a scam. Any other tech than react is immature. Etc etc.

Have fun at FB guys, I hope your share vest soon

<comment><USER76> Are you joking? In every thread about FB besides this one, almost every single comment actively bashes FB.

<comment><USER77> This is something I've wondered... Do all Facebook/Google employees drink the Kool aid? Are there no privacy proponents?

<comment><USER78> You have to have loose morals & ethics, be a misanthrope, or be completely oblivious to the world to even work at Facebook or Google anymore.

<comment><USER79> I think you could make that case easily for Facebook but less easily for Google. The number of useful Google products (AOSP, for instance) is enormous. They contribute massively to open source†. Their co-founders clearly have less evil tendencies that Facebook's founder. Their free products are insanely useful. A lot of Google's products have a price tag attached to them especially for the enterprise sector where they don't trade your data. I would compare Google to Apple and Microsoft and Amazon. Facebook is a totally different entity – I'm of the opinion that Facebook should _never_ have been allowed to acquire WhatsApp and Instagram.

† Before anyone points out that FB contribute to open source… they've about, what, 50 projects, Google has over 2,000 and has been running that Google Summer of Code project for many years which supports 1,000s of projects outside Google.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> Let's call it "FaceCoin".

<comment><USER81> or ZuckBucks

<comment><USER82> They should get Whoopi Goldberg to promote it. Worked well enough before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> No doubt to try and boost their share price.

<comment><USER84> Public company, that is their job and legal fiduciary duty.

<comment><USER85> As far as I know there is no legal requirement to do so.

<comment><USER86> Indeed there isn't:

> Third, corporate directors are not required to maximize shareholder value. > As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not > require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of > everything else, and many do not do so." (BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, > INC.) In nearly all legal jurisdictions, disinterested and informed > directors have the discretion to act in what they believe to be the interest > of the business corporate entity, even if this differs from maximizing > profits for present shareholders. Usually maximizing shareholder value is > not a legal obligation, but the product of the pressure that activist > shareholders, stock-based compensation schemes and financial markets impose > on corporate directors.

[https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_...](https://www.lawschool.cornell.edu/academics/clarke_business_law_institute/corporations- and-society/Common-Misunderstandings-About-Corporations.cfm)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


It's 2016, why is video conferencing still terrible? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@chris_82106/https-medium-com-chris-82106-its-2016-why-is-video-conferencing-still-terrible-1b8802032aae#.rcalpw337 <comment><USER2> The core problem is that we no longer create protocol standards. This has been discussed on Hacker News before, see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256479](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10256479). Each company creates their own protocol (usually piggybacked over HTTP or WebRTC) and no one agrees to unify or share their details.

The proper way to do this would be to get several companies and the IETF + EFF or GNU (or some other libre organization) together in a room and hash out a protocol standard using RFCs. Then clients can be written to that spec. See HTML, Email, TCP/IP, ad nauseum.

[https://www.ietf.org/](https://www.ietf.org/)

<comment><USER3> What do you make of WebRTC?

Is that an attempt to do just what you propose?

<comment><USER2> Yes! A second problem is that not all clients follow the spec. For example, Safari, which has relations with the dog in every respect: [http://iswebrtcreadyyet.com/](http://iswebrtcreadyyet.com/)

Thankfully, for those unfortunate enough to be on an iOS device, I'm sure a native app can provide webRTC support rather than going the browser route.

<comment><USER4> If Safari is an impediment then it's time to put more pressure on Apple to conform. That's a lot easier than inventing new standards.

Mozilla caved on H.264 so anything is possible.

<comment><USER5> I don't think it's really in Apple's interest to conform. The status quo means developers have to build native apps.

<comment><USER4> Apple has a vested interest in having a high quality browser. In many "native apps" it's the backbone of them.

What would Twitter be, for example, without a robust WebKit view for web content?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I believe the biggest impact to rapport is poor audio, not video.

Even dedicated conferencing rooms have poor quality mic setup (easy to fix) and acoustics (a little harder)

It's testament to the ability of echo cancellation and associated algorithms that these systems are able to make anything work at all -- and in many ways this has masked the problem, preventing attention where it's needed.

I develop a 'conferencing' system for radio broadcasters called cleanfeed.net. It's amazingly basic compared to more general systems, (it basically doesn't do any changes to the audio) and yet the rapport is much greater, even with smart use of basic kit -- you can chat over the top of someone, interject and conversation 'flows'; no video needed.

Of course, this is very much a solution for a certain kind of "advanced" user, but I believe the solution is somewhere in the middle -- too much attention spent on video (not audio) and on software (rather than provisioning the right hardware)

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed that quality audio is key. But poor, stuttering video can really be distracting. In Locus we will typically just stop a video stream before allowing the stuttering experience.

<comment><USER6> I think we're probably agreeing here entirely; no video at all is better than bad video, which is a distraction.

Our brains are familiar with a phone call; it's just not a problem in most cases.

The remaining cases are probably more like meetings with unfamiliar people, or webcam sex chat.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a clever way to promote that app.

Instead of making a post about his app like "We made an app that solves X, Y and Z", which probably wouldn't receive much attention, he made a post about the problems instead then casually just mentioned that his app solved the problems.

Smart, I'll probably try that in the future.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. (we did try the other method too)

<comment><USER7> The design needs some work though. You can make it much better quickly by a few quick steps:

\- Replace the horrible box shadows with one from here: [http://cssdeck.com/labs/16-box-shadows-to-save-your- time](http://cssdeck.com/labs/16-box-shadows-to-save-your-time)

\- Add box shadows/borders to the square images.

\- Think about white space. There's basically no space between the paragraphs, yet huge space between the sections. Why?

\- Apply a super slight linear gradient (the two colors should look the same) to the buttons, with perhaps a thin border with a similar color and some slight shadows. The green should be replaced anyway.

\- Think about the typography. The general text here seems a little bold, try a font-size of 300.

Those quick tips make most typical "developer designs" much better quickly.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome. Thanks for the specific recommendations! We know we need to get a designer on this soon. But those we can do easily enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> How many of these are hard technical problems vs. not enough time spent on UX?

At least most of these, with the exception of "connection issues" could be solved with better UX. Is it just a matter of time before the major providers start taking it seriously?

<comment><AUTHOR> Maybe 50-50? Things like minimizing your own video are certainly not hard technical problems. But some apparently UX issues could become hard tech. For example, analyzing mic signals to detect speech vs. background noise to make the experience more comfortable?

<comment><USER3> Yeah, and at what point does deeper AI start to play a role? Some people might want google to listen to your conference and play secretary -- following up on action items, suggesting dates for follow-up meetings, etc. Like they've stated doing with Allo?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One issue is that laptop cameras still mostly suck compared to the high quality smartphone cameras that we have grown accustomed to. Video conferencing vendors can either fix that by offering fancy external cameras, which always ends up being expensive, or using some sort of software processing to improve the video quality. (Shameless plug: our browser extension Zombocam kinda does the latter [https://www.zombocam.com/](https://www.zombocam.com/) )

</comment><comment><USER9> One of the main problems I had as a startup founder with getting a good video conference solution for the team was setting up meeting rooms with hardware. There are very few good all-in-one solutions out there and most of the ones that do exists (Lifesize, Cisco, etc.) are really expensive and not a great experience either.

I've been fairly happy with Highfive[1], as they are the closest I've been able to get to "plug-and-play" video conference rooms. And for the most part the usability is good. The biggest problem we had was that the app would not work with some other companies we wanted to connect with because of their firewall settings, however they are now supporting WebRTC which means no app, no special firewall settings for guests in your conference. I have yet to try the new WebRTC stuff but overall I can highly recommend Highfive based on our first few months working with it.

[1]:[https://highfive.com/](https://highfive.com/)

<comment><USER3> Were those other companies also using highfive? Or were they using other systems?

Webrtc is sadly not immune to firewall issues, so I'd be curious if that actually solves the issue you experienced.

<comment><USER9> No they weren't. Mostly financial companies with arcane firewall setups. They usually had opened things up only for more popular conference software like GoToMeeting or Skype, so that is one of the problems faced when using a newer technology even if it is a better experience overall.

Time will tell if WebRTC solves these issues, it was only just launched this week.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> God the tools my Fortune 500 clients use for remote collaboration are stuck in 2001. It's so bad.

</comment><comment><USER11> Core problem is that video conferencing is inherently an unsatisfying, oddly asymmetrical social presentation. On the phone, users can talk, and be present, yet multitask. On a video conference, you have to present (via acting) a presentation of "present thought", which since most systems show you a real time display of your face, quickly becomes a "mirror exercise" more than a conveyance of information.

It's a poor simulacrum of social interaction, a compromise that satisfies no one.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. Any ideas come to mind how to solve this with technology or UX improvements?

This does relate to one of my points in the blog post. The current experience is not conversational, and instead ends up with the speaker "presenting" much more than just talking.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We've addressed "some" of these problems in our new app: Locus ([https://inthelocus.com](https://inthelocus.com)). It's still new and improving, but we'd love any feedback. Thanks!

Btw. we do use WebRTC and it has worked quite nicely for install-free conferencing.

</comment><comment><USER12> In my 2nd last job we used Skype and it worked flawlessly. In my last job we used google hangouts and it was never perfect and often problematic.

<comment><AUTHOR> In my last job we used Skype for Business. Worked decently once we got connected. But invariably it would take 10 minutes for everyone to actually get connected with working audio. And actually we typically only used audio, so didn't even have to worry about video troubles. Still it suffered from people entering "presentation mode".

Agreed on Hangouts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> My team just started using biba as we now have a remote employee. It's ridiculously easy to use and also has screen share.</comment>


Ask HN: "Idea Guys": Help or ignore? - <AUTHOR>

 What are the basic technical skills you think they can learn on their own that will help them get started? <comment><USER2> HTML, CSS and Javascript so they can at least translate an idea into a prototype/mockup that expresses the idea. That is, assuming a web app idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Are there even more basic technical skills? Wondering if most non-technical folks even know how to setup basic web hosting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Great question - as an "idea guy," I find myself translating in-speak...

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm an "idea person": I want to eventually make a game and I only know a smidgeon of (x)html and css. I've asked around several times for suggestions on how/where to start and people here have been kind about the whole thing. But so far, it hasn't gotten me anywhere. I'm sure I can learn. I'm not sure what the issue is. The whole thing annoys me.

I kind of want a basic game of the "rogue-like" variety that I can figure out how to modify/play with as my "sand box". Or I want someone to just basically inject coding into my brain. I don't think that's so unreasonable: The right person/delivery method can make a world of difference. I found ways to teach math to my son with dyscalculia (so he can't crunch numbers but I was fairly good at math once upon a time). So long experience tells me this may be a long shot but not actually "impossible" (and it's possible to increase the odds of getting a long shot -- something I'm kind of skilled at). I just need to figure out where to start/how to reach critical mass. :-/

Having homeschooled my gifted/LD sons, I'm guessing I'm not so different from most "idea people": My brain is wired in a way where code doesn't just jump in there and make happy dances but it doesn't mean I'm stupid and can't learn. I'm tossing myself out as an example to ponder. If you can figure out how to help me help myself, it is probably replicable, at least to some degree.

<comment><AUTHOR> MZ

You can certainly start looking for communities that would benefit from your game. You can buy a domain, put up a landing page and collect emails of potential customers that are interested. Starting a blog and writing about games in the Rogue genre can help you build an audience. Build interest and a community first, get feedback on your game idea, find out what the community wants and then work on delivering. You might find some talented people along the way willing to join you!

<comment><USER4> Thanks. I've kind of been working on the "build interest and a community" part. Long story short: I have a serious medical condition. I got myself well when that is supposed to be impossible. Everyone treats me like a loon and teller of tall tales. I would like to make a simulation (aka "game") because I think a more information-dense delivery method might help people wrap their brain around what I am talking about. But I'm pretty fed up with the whole thing and will try to stop there before it turns into a rant -- which is to say I have been trying to do what you suggest but I don't think it's accomplishing anything at all, certainly not anything useful to me.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Rails/python mentoring

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely agree starting with RoR or Python would be helpful. Just wondering if non-technical folks even know how to setup a wordpress blog, let alone start programming. Thanks for replying!</comment></comment>


Show HN: Discover the defaults key of any macOS preference - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/FiloSottile/status/1016495719665020935 <comment><USER2> And here's how you can do the same for Gnome settings:

        $ dconf dump / | xclip
        $ gnome-control-center # change something!
        $ diff -u -F '^\[' <(xclip -o) <(dconf dump /)</comment>


Sandstorm gets a security review - <AUTHOR> https://sandstorm.io/news/2017-03-02-security-review <comment><USER2> It's amusing to see that it got a security overview _after_ it shutdown it's business operations. I am curious if it get a security review when it was a proper company given that their USP is security.

I am still sad that the business didn't work out :( I thought there was going to be a follow up blog on where they ended up getting acqui-hired?

<comment><USER3> We actually didn't get acquihired -- Sandstorm is still an independent company, and I'm still the CEO and majority shareholder, but we no longer have paid employees. We're continuing to work on Sandstorm, and have even pushed some major new features in the last couple weeks (e.g. the Powerbox UI for connecting apps to each other and to the outside world with explicit user permission).

What did happen is we're all getting new full-time jobs elsewhere, since we aren't making enough money to pay ourselves. Most of us actually haven't started our new jobs yet (taking a little break) but we'll have a blog post when it happens in a couple weeks.

<comment><USER4> I wonder if you (core devs) could get full-time jobs to integrate Sandstorm with company infrastructures.

<comment><USER3> Probably not -- finding a company willing to hire someone to deploy Sandstorm for them sounds at least as hard as finding a company willing to buy Sandstorm as a product and pay Sandstorm Inc. for support, which is what we had trouble with. I'm sure they exist but enterprise sales are non-trivial. :/

That said, my new employer is a big user of Cap'n Proto, a sub-project of Sandstorm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> SSRF is an extremely bad vulnerability; it's usually game-over on penetration tests. The zip-file path validation bug is also bad.

I'm pretty ambivalent about these "we got a security review, they said we're good" updates, even when they include the actual contents of the report (the final contents of the reports you actually see are almost always negotiated between the client and the testers).

It is a real problem for the industry that there's no clarity to be had about what it means to have had an assessment, what the different assessors capabilities are, how engagements are scoped, &c. I tend to mistrust organizations that use audit results to claim a clean bill of health --- or anything like that --- but more and more projects do that now, so I don't know how valuable that rule of thumb will remain.

<comment><USER3> > SSRF is an extremely bad vulnerability;

I'm not sure this blanket statement -- probably derived from the world of SaaS -- is necessarily helpful in the context of Sandstorm. Keep in mind that Sandstorm is meant to host internal-facing services. One doesn't normally expect that an external attacker will have authority to create a full user account and install their own apps, which is necessary to exploit this particular vulnerability. (It's actually the app, not Sandstorm itself, making the requests; Sandstorm failed to prevent apps from making requests to the private network.)

On Sandstorm Oasis, the service we run which _does_ allow arbitrary visitors to create full user accounts (possibly the only Sandstorm server worldwide that does this), the SSRF did not provide access to anything sensitive.

I'm of course not saying it wasn't a problem -- I described the severity as "high" in the post.

> I'm pretty ambivalent about these "we got a security review, they said we're > good" updates

To be clear, I never made any such claim. The post reports facts, which is that a security review occurred, and some pretty tricky-to-find bugs were found and fixed. I'm sure there are other bugs to be found.

I'd very much like to receive further reviews from other parties.

<comment><USER6> > Keep in mind that Sandstorm is meant to host internal-facing services.

If the goal is not to run internet facing services, why is the project so focused on security? In the enterprise, there is already F5, NIDS etc so nobody can get in. Is sandstorm trying to prevent employees from hacking the company or something?

<comment><USER3> We don't think monolithic firewall-based security has been very successful at preventing hacks. Our goal is to create an environment that involves much more fine-grained separations, and enforces security properties at the platform level so that bugs in apps are largely mitigated. We want you to be able to deploy apps without having to security-review them first, which means the platform itself must provide guarantees.

Arguably an app-driven SSRF is a pretty big problem in that threat model. I think we missed it earlier because we imagine a future world where people don't expose unauthenticated services on the internal network and rely on their firewall to protect them. Of course, we need to keep in mind that the existing world isn't going to go away when people deploy Sandstorm and so we need to handle both worlds gracefully.

Another point to make is that we do envision use cases where someone sets up a personal server and invites their friends to it to chat and collaborate -- usually as "visitors" (can't install apps), but sometimes as full users sharing one server. Typically you'd only invite trusted friends to be "full users", though, unless you are running a hosting service. Hosting services (like ours) ought to be extra-careful with multiple layers of security.

<comment><USER5> That's an argument people have been making for at least 10 years, and it falls apart pretty quickly: how secure do you think most companies would be if you opened up all their AWS security groups to the world?

<comment><USER3> Right. As I said, it's not the case today, for most companies (with Sandstorm ourselves, as a company, being an exception). With most infrastructure people use today, leaving services unauthenticated makes life easier, so people are going to do it.

One of the goals of Sandstorm is to make it easy to connect services to each other where desired without making them open to the world, with the goal of solving this sort of problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Many of these problems were in third-party libraries. It would be cool if Sandstorm were written with capability-safe languages like E or Monte or Pony which encode Sandstorm's security properties into the structure of the language.

<comment><USER3> Sandstorm is of course a huge fan of capabilities, but unfortunately the available capability-safe languages out there do not currently have the kind of ecosystem needed to be really productive. Instead, Sandstorm compromises by using a capability-based RPC layer, Cap'n Proto, which is heavily based on E's CapTP.

With that said, I don't think it's really true that a capability-based programming language would have avoided these problems.

1\. For the Nodemailer problem, no ambient authority was used to split the email into two addresses. A capability-based implementation could have done the same thing. This is more of a langsec issue in that the API was a bit foot-shooty.

2\. If the zip implementation were completely rewritten in a capability language, then sure, this vulnerability could have been avoided. It also could have been avoided if zip accepted NUL-delimited filenames rather than newline- delimited. It's not really practical to rewrite the world in another language, unfortunately.

3\. SSRF can be avoided using capabilities (forcing the attacker to present a capability, not just an address, to any third-party server they wish to access). Ironically, though, this is a networking issue, not an in-process issue, so what we really need is stricter application of capabilities at the network layer, rather than a capability programming language. Sandstorm is actually willing to push capabilities at the network layer. The trouble is, the network is often used to talk to the rest of the world, which isn't usually capability-based. Hence, we have to make compromises.

4\. The Linux kernel bug would maybe have been avoided if the kernel were written in a capability language, but that's a pretty enormous undertaking. Alternatively, it could have been avoided if we forced all our apps to be written in capability languages, but that would mean that no existing codebase could be ported to Sandstorm, which is far too large a cost. That said, I would like to have some special support for apps written in capability languages someday, e.g. to let the user know that this app is extra-safe.

Put simply, going all-capabilities is just not practical today, and we have to make compromises in order to make meaningful progress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Was Cap'n Proto audited as part of this?

<comment><USER3> I'm honestly not sure. I haven't been able to read the original report (which is not in English). My guess is that it did not receive direct attention.

I note that Cap'n Proto did receive some scrutiny from security guru (and personal friend) Ben Laurie in the past:

[https://capnproto.org/news/2015-03-02-security-advisory- and-...](https://capnproto.org/news/2015-03-02-security-advisory-and-integer- overflow-protection.html)

My next job is at a company that is a heavy user of Cap'n Proto, so expect more progress on this front going forward.</comment></comment>


Let's Encrypt to stop working on Node.js and expressjs at end of month - <AUTHOR> https://git.coolaj86.com/coolaj86/greenlock-express.js <comment><USER2> Misleading title, one library (greenlock) that enables this says they will break and are crowdfunding for money.

You can always use nginx or similar in front of any application with LE.</comment>


Where Amazon Is Failing to Dominate: Hollywood - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-amazon-is-failing-to-dominate-hollywood-1507282205 <comment><USER2> Some random things I find irritating about Netflix and Amazon Video:

-Related movies shown in search results when searching for a movie that they don't have in their library. I don't want to watch a bloody alternative else I would have searched for it in the first place!

-Cliched, one dimensional characters

-Tired plot tricks. It seems to me like almost all shows overuse the same limited number of devices to create engagement with characters, build tension, etc. To me this comes across as a bit desperate and needy, as if the scriptwriters are terrified of losing viewers if they don't keep the pacing 100% at all times. I'm sure in the past TV shows used to have more of a sensible, organic pacing.

-On Amazon most of what I want to watch costs extra and 4k pricing is insane

-No trailers on Netflix - I like trailers!

-Removal of the voting system info on Netflix. Stop trying to disguise how unpopular the content is!

-Limited range, at least here in the UK

-Agenda-driven content, especially on Netflix

</comment><comment><USER3> What a stupid title. They are doing amazing with dramas, as total newcomers. They are already one of the best, with the current top titles. Their current problem is release management and TV soaps. Which is an easy problem to have.

</comment><comment><USER2> [http://archive.is/CAWO2](http://archive.is/CAWO2)</comment>


It's never too late to start a brilliant career - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/its-never-too-late-to-start-a-brilliant-career-11556896617 <comment><USER2> Maybe interesting but pay wall

<comment><USER3> Another link: [https://share.qz.com/news/2420179/body/](https://share.qz.com/news/2420179/body/)</comment></comment>


Bring Your Android App to Chromebooks - <AUTHOR> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2016/05/bring-your-android-app-to-chromebooks.html <comment><USER2> This is pretty big news! ChromeOS is a lovely environment, but outside the browser there's not much to do. Now there really is!</comment>


Ask HN: What fundamentals does a veteran mobile/backend dev need for front end? - <AUTHOR> I have many years of .NET and Java (backend, Android, desktop) development under my belt. Over the last year I've had to do a lot of frontend development, first with Angular1 and now with VueJS. I've hit the ground running quite decently, using TypeScript/SASS/Webpack, and so on. I grok the languages, the DOM, HTML/CSS, the frameworks, and my Google-foo seems to be serving me well.
But I'm uncomfortably aware that I'm missing some fundamentals, and am spending way too much time in trial-and-error land. I only have a fuzzy understanding of JS modules, module loading, and bundling. I don't really get when and how the browser loads scripts. I don't really understand the concurrency model of the Javascript VM. I'm somewhat confused by the tooling (NPM seems to be more than just a package manager, Why does Bower exist? Why would you use both Gulp AND Webpack?) And so on.
So, I'm looking for any and all pointers on which fundamentals I need, and the best resources (books, tutorials, online courses, whatever) for learning them, and of course I'm willing to spend money. The important thing is to find resources aimed at an experienced developer who did not come of age doing webdev. <comment><USER2> I did some front end work as a primarily back end guy - I've found that doing some nodejs has helped my core javascript altogether. You have to let go of your ideas about classical languages - but consider ES6, at least you get the class keyword back. The concurrency model is that you have a single thread with an event loop, which never interrupts segments, it waits for an asynch call with a callback or for the function to end. So, your problem is event loop cleanliness vs mutex management.

I would focus on one of the big view players - React or Angular, from facebook and google. It seems like the old school jquery dom updates is out of fashion now. I wouldn't worry about the toolset, it sucks - webpack I guess has some uses.

I would focus on the core thing, e.g. React and javascript fundamentals. Tooling and stuff will follow along once you get a job in it.</comment>