Re:Is Filecoin a $257 million Ponzi scheme? [pdf]
by whyrusleeping on Thursday November 30, 2017 @01:28PM
(#15818160)
> Cryptocurency integration and identity within IPFS could have been done without a new coin
I don't think thats a fair claim to make. There are many attacks on 'pay for distributed storage' that Filecoin addresses. Take a look at [the paper](https://filecoin.io/filecoin.pdf), in particular section 3.1 where we discuss sybil attacks, Outsourcing attacks, and generation attacks. We cover a lot of cases, and build in incentives to continually increase the amount of available storage and push down the price-per-byte. If we thought it was possible to properly incentivize data storage on ipfs without building a blockchain, we would have done so.
Re:Is Filecoin a $257 million Ponzi scheme? [pdf]
by rklaehn on Thursday November 30, 2017 @02:07PM
(#15818543)
I don't get all the hatred for ICOs. Nobody is forcing anybody to invest in them, and for something like filecoin there is at least a chance of something extremely useful coming out of it. Many other ICOs seem pretty strange to me, but as long as I am not forced to invest in them, what's the problem?
Re:Is Filecoin a $257 million Ponzi scheme? [pdf]
by nileshtrivedi on Thursday November 30, 2017 @07:36PM
(#15821006)
Can't say so if it is a Ponzi scheme.
And, just for the record, a cryptocurrency fund raise is simply selling access to given private/public key pairs which contain values, like a database. Even hardened by mining, these values and keys are intrinsically worthless until they are used widely for something valuable. It's when convincing someone it's "valuable because you think it is" that it gets "tricky".