Re: Blockchain

On Fri, Jun 29, 2018 at 01:36:13PM -0700, Michael Eager wrote:
> On 06/29/2018 12:08 PM, Karen Shaeffer wrote:
>  > My understanding is blockchain is one of the most disruptive technology
>  > concepts out in the wild today. Some folks have opined blockchain has
>  > the capacity to bring down the Google and Facebook empires at some
>  > future date:
>  >
>  > http://rbharath.github.io/why-blockchain-could-one-day-topple-google/
> 
> To quote the article: "there’s something to blockchain mania, but 
> perhaps you’re not seeing why the technology is a threat to modern web 
> titans like Google."  Describes me to a T.
> 
> The article goes on about Byzantine Generals, agreement between 
> distrusting parties, smart Etherium contracts, and whatever.
> 
> Google is an advertising engine, harvesting user data to focus ads. 
> There's not a lot of trust in this, nor is a lot required.  My searching 
> for wombats doesn't involve a contract between me and Google.  If Google 
> gives me a photo of a Tasmanian Devil instead of a wombat, either I will 
> be fooled because I don't know better, or I'll know that they are wrong. 
>   If Overstock.com starts feeding me ads of stuffed wombat cushions, I 
> know where they got the clue I might be interested.
> 
> The article hypothesizes a "privacy preserving Google Street View" based 
> (in some unclear fashion) on blockchain.  It presumes that individuals 
> provide photos and decide what info is made public.  It wasn't clear how 
> blockchain facilitates a publicly-sourced SV.  Blockchain might 
> hypothetically allow one to verify ownership of a photo, but to what 
> end?  If you don't want a photo public, don't make it public.
> 
> The article goes on to hypothesize that this become as big as Google, 
> with billions of participants and becomes "an existential threat to 
> Google itself".   It skips the part where they explain how it goes from 
> having one participant, to ten, a hundred, and so on.
> 
> Google spent millions of dollars taking photos of streets around the 
> world.  I presume it did this to drive visitors to its website, but they 
> also sell advertising on the maps.  It didn't depend on crowd-sourced 
> street photos.  It didn't depend on people granting permission to 
> display photos of their house on their street.  (Actually, that is one 
> of the values that Google Street View would have over a crowd-sourced 
> system.  I can look on any street where a Google SV car has gone and get 
> a picture, without having to depend on the residents having published a 
> photo.)
> 
> Counterfactual hypothetical arguments are fun, but to be credible, there 
> has to be some way that you connect real-world facts to they 
> hypothetical conjecture.  When you start from the premise that something 
> becomes big enough to be a threat to Google, and use that premise to 
> show that it is a threat to Google, the argument becomes circular.
> 
> There's not much different in this article that asserting that flying 
> cars represent an "existential threat to Tesla", and support that 
> argument by hypothesizing that everyone owns a flying car no one will by 
> a Tesla.  The logical fallacy is begging the question.
> 
>  > Blockchain obviously has great entrepreneurial potential today. Is the
>  > timing right? Well, that is the uncertainty factor. When. Not if.
> 
> There's value in secure contracts, efficient money transfers, low cost 
> escrows, etc., all built on blockchain.  Blockchain will certainly 
> affect companies like banks, escrow companies, or stock exchanges, where 
> there is a contractual relationship and trust is an issue.  It will 
> affect other kinds of commerce, both domestic and international, where 
> it will be integrated into existing (or perhaps new) supply networks.
> 
> There's a huge amount of hype around blockchain, especially BitCoin and 
> the hundreds (thousands?) of other cybercurrencies based on blockchain. 
> Some folks are going to make a lot of money.  Lots of folks are going to 
> lose a lot of money.


Hi Michael,
Your presentation is scattershot. Let me summarize: Google offers free
services. Blockchain services are for profit -- end to end -- someone
has to pay for each service used. It seems reasonable to think Google is
nimble enough to lock in those folks who are willing to trade off their
privacy for free services. This seems entirely reasonable. A very
significant number of folks don't care about their privacy. And so
blockchain will be limited to application spaces with consumers who are
willing to pay for the services. This is still a very large market. IBM
thinks so.

https://www.ibm.com/blockchain/what-is-blockchain

https://www.ibm.com/blogs/blockchain/category/blockchain-education/blockchain-explained/

Interestingly, IBM has already lost out to the Google and Amazon
empires. And so they are jumping in on this next wave as an
enthusiastic early adopter.

I have no doubt blockchain is going to generate a lot of wealth for
entrepreneurs. The question is When. Not if. Your point about those who
are willing to tradeoff privacy for free services is a good one. It does
seem like a reasonable bound on the extent of where this is likely going.

thanks for your comments.

humbly,
Karen
-- 
Karen Shaeffer                 The subconscious mind is driven by your deeply
Neuralscape Services           held beliefs -- not your deeply held desires.

_______________________________________________
svlug mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.svlug.org/lists/listinfo/svlug