HEY CRYPTO ACOLYTES! Honest question out of sheer curiosity:

in the case of UBER wouldn't you have better retention of value, as there is no HEAD (central maintainer/authority) skimming profit off of what essentially is an agreement between rider and driver?

this,

in usual business u have this

person A wants something from person B person C makes a business out of this

these coins are trying to get rid of person C

On the note of decentralised storage, why are so many blockchains being created for different, specific, yet seemingly overlapping services in the wider picture?

If Sia offers secure decentralised storage that helps with tampering or manipulation, why did patientory come about? Or would storing data with Sia have drawbacks/downsides that make accrssing the data too troublesome? Or is it a simple matter of Sia not being optimized for this specific use of the data they would store? Namely the medical data and records of patients for quick referral in this case.

At the moment I can merwly assume there are little quirks that fundamentally change how any of these services might work and thus each service having their dedicated blockchain/platform is a necessity. Is this what ARK supposedly seeks to solve aswell? Cross-blockchain activity?

>>2838132
So the argument can be made that presenting the people a fully decentralised Uber-like platform, you'd simply eliminate the middleman, in this case UBER itself? Saving on fees and whatnot? What body then agrees on what prices need to be paid per kilometer? What body then checks that the drivers' cars are in acceptable conditions? What body handles disputes, cases of violence or ensures drivers are sound of mind and don't cart off with a girl to the woods?

Or would that be the magic of it? You mark yourself as "in need of a ride", drivers see you as available and come pick you up, at which point it'd be wholly up to you to determine whether you want to get in the car or not? And how would rating drivers for good/bad services rendered work? Would it have known names riding around, or would everyone be anonymous? So many questions.

Thanks for your input though!

File: perspective.png (133KB, 764x768px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 764x768px

>>2838079
>I get the benefits of smart contracts
yet you list ETH as a shitcoin and LTC as a "currency" coin lol

But to answer part of your question, smart contracts in particular automate transactions and have the potential to simplify the escrow/guarantee of delivery of service.

In any case, when you combine this transaction/escrow automation (via smart contracts) with the reliability of a blockchain (i.e. ledger), you essentially remove the need for every entity (uber, airbnb, etc.) to manage their own infrastructure to account for this themselves. Also, because it's blockchain it can be universally trusted in regards to transparency.

Keep in mind, the implementation is still being developed because it's so new. Enterprise is slow to adopt. In 5 years, it's going to be as common as any type of distributed microservices and API frameworks that you see running current enterprise infrastructure.

>>2838184
>What body then agrees on what prices need to be paid per kilometer
the buyer and receiver. just like how people on craigstlist price all kinds of random shit accordingly

>>2838211
buyer and *seller

>>2838185
You are mistaken, friend, I do not count ETH among shitcoins. As I said, if we remove the shitcoins or dead coins, we end up with a list of coins we are all familiar with, that have clear visions.

I wholly support and eagerly await the fruits of these endeavours. But my confusion lays in the fact that there seem to be so many different coin/tokens that are geared towards some service that seemingly would have no need of any of this. But as I understand, most of these decentralised/distributed services aim to simply remove the middlemen? Is that all? Are there other benefits?

>>2838218
>you are mistaken, friend, I do not count ETH among shitcoins
you're correct. I was skimming your novel of a post and misread. apologies

i learned a new word today thank s op

>>2838211
I think there is an underlying problem there. People don't want to have to negotiate what is usually a 5 or 10 minute ride. So maybe Uber(clone) drivers get meters. But then, they're just a fucking cab company

>>2838211
So this decentralised UBER-like service would have people haggling on the streets for prices until they reach a compromise? Unless the prices turn out to be noticeably lower than traditional taxi prices or those offered by Uber I see no reason why people would ever agree to haggle and have a driver asking for more than what they are already used to paying. Not to mention the flat methods of old taxi services and even Uber leave you with already agreeable prices you can just accept and get on with the ride, not be standing inthe street, bartering over price per km. Surely I am missing something? You'd need extremely agreeable drivers who are willing to compromise for this to work.

File: 1368309630031.jpg (120KB, 707x720px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 707x720px

In many cases there isn't a clear cut reason. Its just that crypto is the *hot* new thing right now and thus everyone is latching on. Plus its an unregulated way of raising a lot of capital from - and lets be honest here - mostly uneducated investors.

My personal favorite "totally does not need a fucking token" ICO: https://ico.paquarium.com/

Which aims to build the world's largest aquarium using funds from an ICO. The tokens acts as a dividend. This is fine and all by itself, but in no way does it requires a token.

File: value_store.jpg (100KB, 576x960px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 576x960px

>>2838218
>>2838218
>there seem to be so many different coin/tokens that are geared towards some service that seemingly would have no need of any of this

I agree 100%. Any tokens real benefit would be internal to the org that uses it (and however they chose to use/value it). Think of how ripple uses the xrp token for transactions.

Again, the benefit here for blockchain+smart contracts is simply a way to offload and distribute the accounting/processing of transactions (whatever they represent) for whatever company can benefit from this technology (which will eventually be the majority of companies).

Coins are the equivalent to giftcards, materially worthless, but conceptually are value stores.

>>2838252
>people haggling on the streets for prices until they reach a compromise
no, even now we're more sophisticated than this. look at fiver for an example of how people price their services

>>2838261
Hah, this kind of fundraising for what is essentially a one-off construction is something I understand even less. Wht not approach any other fundraising possibility? Hell, market your idea well enough and you'd get something from crowdfunding even. But a crypto ICO? Too much. But hey, that too is part of the magic i guess - anyone can do anything they want. It's up to us to choose where we allocate our resources.