Hacker News Reader

Comment by cscharenberg | Hacker News Reader

From the article: "Uber, Kickstarter, Airbnb, and the rest — is just a glorified listing service, enhanced with some combination of real-time connections, trust-building systems, and transaction-easing tools.

I don't understand this at all. The author seems to be arguing that the blockchain, which is "a cryptographically protected shared database " is actually the major part of Uber, Spotify, and AirBnb's business. That seems like a fantastical, ludicrous statement. The author is dismissing the entirety of the business logic, management tools, and user experience as being irrelevant. It's the other way round: these business could operate with pen and paper because the storage mechanism is irrelevant. But they couldn't operate without a all the operational and user experience in place.

View on HN

I think you are right vis-a-vis the article...but maybe the author does have a point that "Uber, Kickstarter, Airbnb, and the rest" could be disrupted through decentralization making the centralized services obsolete?

Example, I have an underutilized asset I want to leverage in the "sharing economy", say a house I want to rent. As long as the end user trusts the transaction is legit, which I think could be achieved through a decentralized system, I don't need the "tools" of these centralized services.

> end user trusts the transaction is legit

Maybe that's the hard part these companies solve for. When a deal turns sour you have someone to shout at. With a blockchain, you have no one. In effect, the companies you mentioned are the facilitators of trustful transactions.

In your example how do you tell renters you have a house for them?

If the answer is "some service like Airbnb that uses the blockchain", I'd contend that the end user really doesn't care what it's built on.

The service is the marketplace, not the legitimacy of the transaction.

The problem that decentralized services will always have is that someone has to make them, and those companies will lose out on all the benefits of a centralized system (primarily control). A centralized competitor will exploit those benefits with no detriment because again, users don't care what's behind the front end they interact with. Any company looking to build something is going to have a hard time explaining to free market investors why it is in their best interest to relinquish control for whatever the blockchain gives them in return.

Came here to say basically this, but want to add one thing: they also don't talk about reputation and management of that reputation. In order words, you wouldn't take an Uber ride with someone that has 1/5 star rating. How would the blockchain deliver this info to the user in a concise, readable way?

Seems like the author does not realize that higher abstractions don't always make a solution better.

> How would the blockchain deliver this info to the user in a concise, readable way?

Easy, the rating system is part of the blockchain. An app would consume the blockchain and determine what to display, just like bitcoin apps right now. In fact, it's easier for me to imagine a rating system using the blockchain rather than a ridesharing platform.

The blockchain doesn't drive cars or allow people to sleep in rooms. It doesn't store or provide music

So, the answer to the headline is a resounding No

The blockchain doesn't move currency, either. You are thinking of the blockchain as a living organism rather than what it is, a store of information.

So true

Reply on news.ycombinator.com