Thread replies: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
Anonymous
Why decentralization? 2017-07-04 05:15:19 Post No. 2704622
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Why decentralization? 2017-07-04 05:15:19 Post No. 2704622
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: goldman .png (76KB, 1350x1026px) Image search:
[Google]
76KB, 1350x1026px
So before I start, let me say that Blockchain is clearly a promising technology. It's invulnerable to most kinds of hacking and can serve as a more efficient means of transferring money and data under certain circumstances.
But what market is there for decentralization? Let's take a look at Golem for instance. Golem's premise is a decentralized supercomputer that allows people to buy and sell idle computing power. In Golem, you'd pay a fee (presumably in Golem), allowing you to buy other people's idle computing power. It subsidizes your hardware and electricity costs since you can use other people's computing power and all you need is Golem and a connection to Golem's network.
But what's stopping Intel from doing the same thing? The primary interest in the short term would come from industry, like Pixar for instance, who want to reduce their costs. In the long run, you'd see an advantage to consumers who would want to change from buying like $1500 Mac laptops to buying what amounts to a screen, but that would take at least 10 years because it'd involve titanic shifts in the technology industry.
So what incentive is there for industry to work with a bunch of unregulated Eastern European memers to do something like a market in computing power, when Intel could easily (and has shown interest) in the very same thing? There's nothing stopping Intel from using Blockchain.
This is the difference between something like Golem and Veritaseum or Ripple, where you have the advantage of lower fees. With Golem, you'd have to pay a fee to access the network, which would involve changing your money from USD or another currency into Golem and then doing business, which involves exchange fees and also takes time. Meanwhile, Intel is offering the same service and charging in dollars or local currency, so no exchange is needed and the overall experience is faster.
>>
>>2704622
>inb4 nocoiner shill
I own some Golem right now, I'm just curious about the long term trend of this tech. It seems like it doesn't have a lot of consumer appeal. I'm considering selling it though because of this.
>>
>>2704622
completely agree - bump for a good topic. This definitely has implications for the profitability of other decentralization projects. There was a cute distributed protein folding project being run by some group back in 2010 ish. Academia and related is the only sizable market I can think of for distributed computing (assuming intel doesn't step in). Sure artists might contribute volume, but I don't see this coin having big/much any value. centralized solutions will kick its ass.
>>
>>2704622
Main difference are it's literally permissionless and also no middle man.
The latter means lower costs. The former is most interesting. Would you choose to build a business that relies on a single point of failure (Intel) or a network of many smaller organisations? Would you choose your business to exist at the whom of Intel, or would you build on the network that will always have someone somewhere willing to provide the service you need?
When these systems mature it will be both less risky and cheaper to use them.
I think it will take many years before established large businesses trust them tho. To start with it will be smaller Devs/orgs looking to save money and not jump through hoops. But some of these small organisations will be the next massive organisations too.
>>
>>2705242
Super fucking interesting shit keep going smart anons.
For those of us who prefer subtle, upper class shilling this is great!
>>
>>2704622
Also, Intel could do this but has no need for """blockchain""". The only benefit of a blockchain is to do this in a decentralised manner. Intel could have done this already with existing tech.
>>
>>2704622
>Why decentralization?
Because with centralization corruption will occur. You can take your chances with 10000 people backstabbing each other and getting some winners and some losers with decentralization or you can have centralization with 10 people backstabbing 99990 losers.
In short, decentralization = freemarket capitalism. Centralization = communism.
>>
>>2705242
We (as collective) have a strong tendency to put our trust into too-big-to-fail institutions. I hate citing the guy but Golem is literally Taleb's antifragile: a system that can quickly recover from constant small failures due to being decentralized, whereas Intel, when they miss, will miss immensely and irreversibly. In short, your post is correct but the public would need more than a couple years of education on why a big central system is actually fragile regarding spontaneous failure.
>>
>>2704622
Centralized stuff is essentially servers.... which we already have.
People use server farms to render shit.
>>
>>2705242
(Please note I wrote this without actually reading up on Golem. I'm just excited about crypto potential in general)
For another example if this stuff being cheaper, see Sia coin. They are currently selling storage at nearly an order of magnitude cheaper than Amazon, simply because a bunch of neckbeards have free hard drive space and have now been given a way to monetize it.
Also consider hypothetical example of a university with a bunch of computers sitting idle overnight. The machines are already paid for so all the university needs is for profit to cover electricity and maybe some stress on machines (but most will be discarded before they are anywhere near end of life anyway).
These permissionless networks allow resources to be sold that couldn't easily be sold before
Thread posts: 10
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1