Predicteria 2015 | Hacker News Reader

Predicteria 2015

joyent.com

31 pointsbcantrill12 comments

I was at a classmate of yours at Brown, although a few years younger. I like to play the prediction game too! Maybe it comes from all those hours in the Sun Lab.

I like most of your predictions, but I think you're at least half-wrong on the cryptocurrency side; the blockchain is real innovation. Do you guys know at Joyent that your data hasn't been modified, deleted, lost or added to and when? I bet you don't. The amount of data risk any modern company takes on is almost criminal, just like you refer to in your security predictions. The blockchain technologies let you solve that problem, among many others.

I'm not predicting a brilliant year for Bitcoin; I think there's a lot of building to be done on the currency side especially, but I just don't see the case for sniping at it too much, especially while transaction rates stay well in excess of $10mmUSD / day in the middle of falling prices. I'm going to predict some notable traction in smaller non-libertarian markets for Bitcoin by the end of 2015 in return. :)

I don't dispute that there is real innovation with the blockchain -- just that the level of innovation cannot alone justify the value of or interest in cryptocurrency. To answer your question: linked timestamping[1][2] does, in fact, solve this problem -- and solved this problem long before the blockchain. Again, not disputing that the blockchain doesn't allow one to prove tamper-proof transaction systems or that this isn't an important problem -- just that it's not the first technology to do it, isn't the only way to do it, and doesn't alone pay the freight for the level of interest in cryptocurrency.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linked_timestamping

[2] http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/15188/T...

It seems odd that you would claim that a system requiring a centralized "time stamping authority" is equivalent in functionality to a decentralized mechanism like a blockchain.

As for saying that "cryptocurrencies are a laughingstock"... can you quantify that claim in concrete terms using a date and a price range prediction for that date?

It is very amusing to see him predict that internet of things will "broaden" while wearables will "fizzle". He even links to an example of how silly an idea this is: http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/intel-smart-baby-onesie/

A watch that isn't a great computer, and doesn't work well as a watch, isn't going to be a great product. However there are so many other kinds of wearables that we can do well with modern technology.

One kind of wearable technology that we have now and are going to see a lot more of this year is the body camera.

I probably wasn't sufficiently explicit, but that was actually my point: that IoT would divorce itself from wearable computing -- with the latter being a fizzling fad but the former being a profound change in nearly every industrial activity (in my opinion). For example, GE has a bunch of interesting things going on in this space[1] -- stuff that I think is much more real and much more profound than wearable computing (at least in 2015).

[1] http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-ma...

I did not argue that the IoT won't expand dramatically, or even that it is not the more important of the two technologies. However my point is that wearable computing can't possibly divorce itself from from the IoT. Any wearable object with the ability to collect and upload data falls into both categories. By that token, if wearable computing is not going to break away as its own thing, it will just become a small part of the internet of things.

Though I do suppose that the trend of pretending we can magically fit a smartphone into a watch or a pair of glasses is going to fizzle. However that was never really more that fantasy(I mean Google X is about taking technology they expect to have 10 years in the future and trying to build it now). In the meantime the more modest wearable computing devices we can actually build(like smart onesies and smart insulin pumps) have been continuing their steadily accelerating progress along with the rest of the IoT.

Ripple is going gangbusters. I think it will be bigger in 2015: https://ripple.com/news/

I like how the quote they pulled from the WSJ article at the top of your linked page is out of context to make it look like the federal reserve is specifically investigating ripple technology.

The sentence is pretty clear:

> Some Federal Reserve district banks are looking at how the technology might streamline the Fed’s interbank payments system...

Not sure what you are construing.

The Earthport deal is much bigger anyway because it is addressing an area for which there is no existing infrastructure, international payments.

There is no indication that "the technology" in the WSJ article is referring to Ripple, but to Bitcoin technology in general- Other readers can check the original source and draw their own conclusion, but it is pretty obvious when the entire paragraph is read (instead of the cherry-picked sentences)

There is no confusion if you read it as it is stated. They are referring to banks investigating Ripple, not Bitcoin. So no, the article is not confusing the two. Bitcoin technology (blockchain) is completely different from Ripple (consensus). The only thing they have in common is the "crypto" moniker. You can see an article with a Vice President of the St Loius Fed who is aware of the differences: https://ripple.com/blog/5-questions-for-st-louis-fed-economi...

Wow, I've done a few Google searches on the sourcing of articles on Mr Andolfatto that contain pro ripple statements, and I see curious things, a deep rabbit hole I'm not going to enter.

I should say in general though the Ripple did some very innovative things and deserves the success they've had so far, on technical merit alone.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com