I'm sad to see this. I admire Steve Wozniak, and love what he did to the world.
At the same time, I fear that he has picked a weird way to address climate change.
It is VERY unclear from the beginning what Efforce actually is. Almost at the bottom, you see it's an ICO.
Perhaps we can describe it as the equivalent of a carbon offsetting marketplace, just for energy?
Well, if that's the case... It doesn't need a blockchain, and it doesn't need a token. It can be done, today, in dollars and euros.
If there's a token, and a token sale, Efforce and its founders will benefit from it, even if their efforts will not positively impact the world. That's unfair.
Why not, instead, reward them in a "normal" way - create an energy efficiency marketplace, earn a commission on the energy "traded" there, voilà. No blockchain, no token sale, no bullshit.
Am I wrong? If so, what did I not understand?
Edit: I see that EFFORCE is listed/tradeable, and apparently worth ~$950M already, which makes me even more suspicious... [0]
> The company is registered in Malta because the Apple co-founder said he had long wanted to invest in the region. "It has been on my mind for decades. Like no other place in the world," he said.
Statements like this make me question the truthiness of the entire venture. If they chose Malta for specific tax reasons or laws, just say so! Most rational people are going to read this and have their bullshit detector go off (for better or for worse).
I agree with both your comment and the one you are responding to. I just hope that this venture isn't targeting non-rational people out there... even though it certainly looks like it is.
Your default assumption should be that ICOs are fraud.
This assumption should be strong enough that attaching a famous name to them should not change your position much.
The restriction free rewards for issuing an ICO are nearly unfathomable. Millions to billion dollars of dumb money flowing it based only on tens of thousands of dollars in marketing. Some people find it easy to rationalize.
In a situation like this involved parties might feel it's justified because the money they're defrauding out of the public could be applied to a virtuous cause.
Maybe, which is why I said 'default'. But the lack of good practices or protections means even that the most earnestly run one is extremely risky and likely to ultimately yield fraud like returns to their investors due to honest errors.
Moreover, there is a huge lemon market problem: If if an issuer is in the the (say) 1% of honest efforts they are in constant competition with fraud, under pressure to make misleading fraud-like promises and offer fraud-like returns-- prudent parties realize this and exit knowing that they have better options. So investors are left with the honest participants that were too clueless to realize this or not attractive enough to have other alternatives.
Yeah, did Wheels of Zeus do anything? What did Woz do at Fusion io and Primary Data? It sounds like he's been renting out his name to various small companies.
I've thought about this basic business idea a lot. And there are businesses that already exist using this model, using dollars. The problem you run into is the transaction costs and overhead. The savings are a long tail distribution situation. So the current providers only target very large clients. There are tons of smaller opportunities that on paper have a great rate of return, but it is hard to get the overhead and transaction cost low enough to make the numbers work. Look at this structure as a way to lower the transaction costs and overhead of attacking this market. I'm excited they are trying.
"transaction costs" have nothing to do with it. All they are using the blockchain for is to store meter readings, the blockchain is significantly more expensive than the standard method: a regular-ass database.
It's yet another example of the misconception that blockchain somehow guarantees data validity. In reality it does the opposite: it reduces tampering, sure, but there are other ways to reduce tampering that don't also forbid validation. A broken meter will put bad data on the blockchain just the same as it will any other database, but because you're using blockchain you now can't go back and fix it when you find the error.
I was thinking about on boarding investors, on boarding clients, generating reports for this investors, collecting payments, etc. I think the meter data is of the least importance here. I've worked with huge amounts of remote metering applications that have significantly more dollars at stake. The industries that use them already have standards in place for how to deal with measurement problems.
If you are right then I'd hope you'd start an efficiency as a service company that covers upgrade costs up front and collects payments over time. There is a huge lack of providers in the space that are a few thousand dollar or less upgrades with payouts over about two years. You can see the challenge, you have to spend less than a few hundred dollars in overhead/transactions over a multi year relationship!
The vast majority of companies in this space are targeting large facilities with multi million dollar upgrades, because it is hard to make the numbers work otherwise.
I concur with your point, considering we already have methods like hashing to create rather unique signatures, and with frameworks and regulations(laws). I'm going to vaguely quote James Mickens here, but you can basically sue someone if there is an issue. If there is an issue on the block chain? You need to fork it. Oh, and the talk for anyone who's interested considering he conveys a few interesting points I've seen throughout this thread. https://youtu.be/15RTC22Z2xI
> The data that each smart meter will transmit will be validated and certified by the blockchain, so as to be able to unequivocally guarantee the savings obtained at a
certain point in time
Block chain doesn't validate things happening in the real world (energy saved, KWh consumed) only auditors/inspectors can do that. The data from the smart meter can always be faked before it goes to the blockchain network.
Have I missed something? I'd be inclined to give Woz the benefit of the doubt on most things but I don't get what blockchain gives here apart from marketing BS - for which its a year or two behind the times?
You've hit the nail on the fundamental issue. Authenticity check at the Physical -> Digital touch point. Some efforts such as digital KYC for banking are able to solve this because the process involves a government issued identity, so the authenticity of the physical -> digital transmission is sort of embedded into the physical asset itself. Tampering the physical asset can be quickly reverified using several of the asset parameters (photo, DOB etc).
For aspects such as meters or constantly changing physical data, I am not sure if it will ever be possible to ensure the authenticity of physical -> digital touchpoint.
Is this something an embedded processor can help resolve ? In essence eliminating the possibility of fake data emerging from the meters ?
Usually a company will not generate its own energy. Depending on the country, the infrastructure is sometimes publicly owned and managed.
Maybe the physical -> digital touchpoint here could be outside the boundaries of the company. The energy grid should report those numbers as references, to subscribers agreed upon by the company for example. There it could be certified by the government.
Or something like that?
Edit: Well of course now there would be an incentive to burn petrol to run turbines and generate locally, then turn them off to capitalize on a high in the energy efficiency security market...
Same problem with supply chains. There is still the need for a trusted party at the beginning of every block chain with a physical component to assure physical and digital data are the same.
This is why i had hopes for AI blockchains as the data and trained models or functional algorithms could be verifiably provable as increasing usability/productivity/efficiency etc. You could still say your device/robot didn't improve, but if you continued using the models or algorithms then that would be noticeable. You would have to know they were still being used though, so you would need a time-sensitive encryption that calls home to activate, and if used in multiple instances you'd know that too. But reverse engineering the encryption to get the secret sauce sounds like a workaround. It could be made difficult for average folk, but not impossible. The real advantage would be micro/nano-payments and fee-less transactions since the device is the "miner", ie. by not using BTC/ETH etc.
At the end of the day a subscription model is probably easier.
Is there a single case of a blockchain-enhanced service where the end result is provably better than a centralized system? I'm cynical given that every case I've seen so far has turned out to be rubbish, though admittedly I'm not heavily in that space.
There's some defi apps that allow you to buy non-custodial versions of synthetic stocks 24/7. I would say this is provably better than the current centralized system. If all stocks were issued as tokens, then the velocity of money would drastically increase. In addition, the tokens themselves could be allocated to automated contracts for liquidity and to receive yield for lending/burrowing. Peer to peer finance.
Distributed energy grid because you don't want centralized taxation, and it's tangible.
The step change in software/OS from boxed to subscription will continue to next phase. With AI the current subscription model is probably not granular enough. Every device/robot will switch tasks and capabilities and upgrades/downgrades with such a frequency that traditional subscription breaks (refunds/tax/fees etc) so blockchain subscription per device without human interaction will probably work better. AI is bots learning from bots which is already distributed, so centralizing that may be inefficient (high bandwidth).
Split your incoming power to two lines and put the smart meter on one of them and it will register half the power. Route power from your diesel generator through the meter that's meant to be recording your solar generated power.
No amount of private keys and digital block chain security is going to provide physical security
Residential its harder but an industrial/commercial property could possibly have multiple power inlines, a diesel generator for emergency power, and perhaps solar panels on the roof and batteries. It may have agreement to use power within specific ranges during the day for different prices and supply power back to a power company or neighbouring businesses.
Under those conditions it's always possible to divert power to 'adjust' the perceived power usage.
My point was that block chain doesn't validate anything - a private key will prove that the data (good or bad) is from the specific user, block chain won't validate that its good.
In most jurisdictions in the USA renewable energy generators are registered and audited by a third party, (like mrets.org where I work). Anomalies with generation data can be compared directly with data from the grid operators. Utilities will also require these commercial operations to have a "commercial energy meter" which are very expensive.
But in this case the blockchain implementation will provide irrefutable evidence to support any investigation. It's not some magical hand-wavy substitute for investigation, but recording this in a tamper-resistent manner can be useful (although blockchains are far from the only way to do this).
There's plenty of ways of proving that these values were legitimate, but they're nothing to do with the blockchain element, that's the investigation side. What the blockchain element does is say, "X was definitely recorded by Y at T". It's a tool in the box. It's not the box.
Blockchain doesn't provide irrefutable evidence of anything except that the record wasn't tampered with after the fact (and it's a very expensive and wasteful way to do so). Blockchain does nothing to verify the correctness of the data it holds, only its consistency with the history.
You would need control of 51% of the nodes to submit a block with arbitrary data and override consensus.
You can’t just add any hash to a block and add it to the network. In order to be the miner to add the next block, you have to win a competition to find a correct hash that solves a difficult math problem. Since there is no way to start with a resulting hash and work backwards to figure out what piece of data gave that hash, the Bitcoin protocol uses this feature to create its difficult math problem. The math problem stipulates that the first miner to produce a hash with a certain amount of leading 0s will be the winner of that block and be able to add it to the network.
>You would need control of 51% of the nodes to submit a block with arbitrary data and override consensus
This is only true for corrupted miners. That is not an issue in this case because the company controls 100% of miners (and therefore, you are trusting them not to write bad data).
It is completely irrelevant to the question of corrupted clients, which no blockchain can guarantee against. All you have to do is attach some bypassing wires to the input and output of your "blockchain-enabled smart meter" to write completely fraudulent entries to the history that can never be fixed.
That's a significantly different attack, with different economics. It involved selling electricity instead of just buying less of it, and profiting from government subsidies. Clearly that can work if the subsidies are high enough.
We do that because our job in general is to ignore current practical limitations. The line between practical and impractical changes based on what we make; the job is all about creating solutions that either make a goal more practical, or improving the efficiency of a standing process.
This isn't just a problem with software engineers, but most engineering disciplines. It's impractical to transport logs hundreds of miles for processing, until we create a system that can do it efficiently. It's impractical to keep detailed records of billions of transactions, until we set up a database and reporting infrastructure that can handle that load.
iPhones are a 15 year effort by a trillion-dollar market cap company to produce secure hardware that retails for $1000, and still regularly gets hit with root exploits.
No, but you are able to hook another device up to the battery so that the iPhone is wrong about its own power usage and phones home with incorrect values.
Right, but that's the "traditional" E.S.Co system. It doesn't explain how the Benefitting company gives value to token holders, it just says they pay the E.S.Co.
Maybe it's badly worded. It could mean that the history is cryptographically resilient against tampering in the future. Ie once your meter submits a reading, it becomes part of the blockchain and cannot be tampered with. Is this really that useful though?
Yes I also think this is not the best way to use blockchain because sensor data can be faked one way or another. The best way to connect blockchain to the real world is by using human psychology and so I think the best use case is still cryptocurrency.
You can use crypto to build communities around a shared incentive, this in itself is an extremely powerful feature which doesn't get anywhere near enough attention considering that every idea these days relies on shared incentives in order to succeed.
Scientists in industrial research labs are often required to keep journals, and sometimes get them signed periodically from others, so that in case of legal issues (usually patents), there is a clear paper trail. This is not a foolproof method, and multiple people can conspire to change the journals at a later date. However, it is a better system than where people don't do this.
Don't think in binary. Think, whether this system provides better validation/certification than where auditors/inspectors come by at the end of the year to check records. Perhaps, it's harder to systematically cheat the system if you have to announce your data to the world daily, then if you wait till the 11th month, and cook your books so everything works out.
I doubt this removes the role of auditors/inspectors, but it might supplement them.
All this makes me think is that the 2020 crypto bullrun is starting. Prepare for more "celebrity" tokens, BTC swelling past ATH followed by a massive crash that takes out a majority of the current 550 tokens on CoinMarketCap, and countless other DeFi tokens on Uniswap
You are right in the strictest sense, but I think blockchain is still interesting here. With a blockchain, there is a tamper-proof public record of who submitted what, and that can make disputes through a good old fashioned legal process more streamlined later on.
As usual, this marketing page is quite vague, but I'm reading it as the cryptocurrency equivalent of existing carbon offset markets. Both require auditors to validate the offsets, but Efforce just handles the market side.
I agree with you that use of blockchain on its own is not fully secure, but that can be mitigated for the most part through the same sorts of proof-of-work and proof-of-stake mechanisms and entities that Etherium, etc. use. with adjustments.
This might be exactly the time for Woz and co. to get into this given that there are others handling those problems, right?
> I agree with you that use of blockchain on its own is not fully secure, but that can be mitigated for the most part through the same sorts of proof-of-work and proof-of-trust mechanisms and entities that Etherium, etc. use.
None of that does anything to prove that the energy consumption data you are submitting is true.
That’s what proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are about. I’m saying that the problem has been solved and would need to just be applied to this use case.
Nope: those only apply to elements on the blockchain, not elements in the real world. You'd need proof-of-not-work for a real energy efficiency business.
> That’s what proof-of-work and proof-of-stake are about
Nope. No amount of "proof of X" will help if you put false data on the blockchain in the first place. They will do a great job securing the false data though. Good luck with that.
Honestly, I'm going to take the risk that this comment might not age well, but... I feel bad for Steve. Promoting crypto-networks have gone poorly for pretty much every pseudo-celebrity that's done it.
This company is run by a bunch of random people. The very first thing I see is where to buy the token. There's a bunch of growth charts that have nothing to do with the platform itself (more people are expected to use energy in the future, just in case you didn't know). These type of blockchain pitches are way too familiar at this point.
Honestly without real standards/regulation blockchain is just going to be synonymous with fraud and failure. Bitcoin is its own thing, not just "blockchain". Companies are leveraging its success as if they're offering the same features (like immutability) or growth prospects just by offering "blockchain solutions".
Hopefully Steve can avoid the McAfee/Segal ending.
Do you ever feel like all these blockchain frauds and failures are intentional and designed to keep the general public from ever trusting the technology?
This isn't an indictment of the project or idea, but as a note of caution for potential investors: it looks like the company's CEO[1] may have been a defendant in a (dismissed) securities fraud[2] case in the past.
Woz's reputation is likely a factor in the traction this post (and perhaps business) is gaining, and I hope that it's a credible operation for his sake. He's taking an engineer and founder role, and there is a separate CTO (who has experience founding a Square-reader-like[3] company in Italy).
Wow, so when someone is merely accused of something and then the courts dismiss it we should consider that person's reputation tarnished? What a terrible way to treat people.
No, I don't think a dismissed court case makes much of a statement regarding anyone's character, and that wasn't my assertion or intent.
My sense is that potential investors would be wise to be aware of information like this, as part of various decision-making factors and research before they invest their own money (or other people's) in potentially risky projects.
Normally I would agree with you. However in this case we also know this person is now involved with an ICO scheme. This puts the situation into the realm of 'where there's smoke...'
The other commentators are really just pointing out that this kind of thinking is toxic. Imagine someone accuses you of sexual misconduct, and later the allegation is publicly proven to be misplaced. But you still get weird looks from your peers... How would you feel?
I think it would have been much better launched in EU. I can totally see this is as a platform for energy efficiency accountability and energy efficiency investment tracking for tax break purposes.
My problem with it is that (1) the whitepaper is too thin on tech details and (2) it seems to have a fixed energy project model connected to those EFFORCE tokens preventing it from being used on a national level where a country has its own legally mandated reward scheme different from EFFORCE vision.
Which is the #1 sign of every crypto scam (or a less maliciously: of a poorly constructed crypto project).
A whitepaper at the very least should outline the incentive mechanisms of _all_ the actors (and their actions) in the system (and not just the miners like they do).
On top of that it has the very traditional real world->blockchain problem of needing to have verified data about the real world on the blockchain for the token to work. "The data that each smart meter will transmit will be validated and certified by the blockchain" sadly are just empty words, as the blockchain can neither validate nor certify anything about the real world on its own (and any "smart meter" can be tempered with). That's also only a single data point that's required for the token to work (if everything else holds up). They would also need prior energy consumption, which the implementing companies would be incentivized to downplay.
The concept is as full of holes as your run-of-the mill 2018 bubble crypto project.
I implemented a POC project with s contract and payment settling system. We settled on a solution where both parties would invoke a etherum transaction and would provide the details of the (business) transaction from their POV. I.e the goods (electricity) provided and the payment etc details. If there was a difference the data for that transaction would be flagged as "needs inspection/resolution". Otherwise the smart contract would distribute the payment tokens as agreed and record the data in the ledger.
But yeah all the data eventually has to come outside of the blockchain itself. This is always the weakness and shifts the trust issue to whoever is providing the data. Blockchain itself is no Magic bullet to resolve the fundamental issue of "trust"
> This document is confidential and by accepting delivery of this document, you agree to keep confidential all information contained herein.
Sorry, we can't discuss it.
The massive "NOT FOR UNITED STATES PERSONS" disclaimer isn't exactly encouraging either.
> You may not, nor are you authorised to, deliver or disclose the contents of this document to any other person.
Very clear that we can't discuss it.
> EFFORCE Limited, a Bahamas based company limited by shares, formed for the purpose of issuing EFFORCE tokens on behalf of its controlling entity EFFORCE Ltd, a Malta company
Nothing says "I am not a crook" like using two different corporate entities in notorious tax avoidance jurisdictions.
While Malta is in the Eurozone, I'm not sure you could launch something like this in a country with respectable financial regulators. Mind you, those are in short supply after Bafin/Wirecard...
Starting a company on Malta is a pain so unless you live there or work in online gambling (where their regulations actually are decent) the only reason to do so is due to their lax regulations on the finance sector. Outside online gambling Malta is dreadful for startups, so that they are Malta based is indeed a bad sign.
My knowledge comes from having worked in the online gambling industry and knowing a lot of people who live in or have lived in Malta.
The Bahamas are also not known for their regulatory rigor. Being based both in the Bahamas and in Malta seems even stranger, unless the company intends to engage in a level of shenanigans that would be beyond the tolerance of even a generally tolerant jurisdiction.
As a Swiss, I don't know whether I should be offended or relieved that our usual suspect, Zug, does not seem to be involved in this.
Low tax rates, lax regulation, and a relatively efficient and impartial court system (our courts are definitely in the pocket of capitalism, but not so much in the pocket of individual capitalists) have led to a proliferations of companies there, many of whose existence in Zug consists solely of a mailbox.
This has also led to a proliferation of local talent which looks passable in a suit, can open mailboxes, is versed in law and/or accounting, and does not steal excessive amounts of money.
The business model is basically "stuff that is not provably illegal yet". During the Cold War, Switzerland got away with a lot, but in recent years, many formerly lucrative areas of business started drying up thanks to stricter money laundering laws etc. So for an ecosystem that has evolved to accommodate financial engineering right at the edge of legality, cryptocurrency seemed almost a custom made niche.
Indeed. The real parent company appears to be AitherCO2 SpA, and many of the staff listed are Italian. So there's a reason for not doing this as a SpA. On the other hand there appears to be a somewhat-genuine energy efficiency business under there. This reminds me of "Kodak gets into blockchain" or the Long Island Iced Tea fiasco (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-21/crypto-cr... )
> work in online gambling (where their regulations actually are decent)
This claim is false. The internet is littered with corpses of Malta-based gambling sites that exit scammed their playerbase. This doesn't occur in jurisdictions where the gambling regulations are "decent".
Edit: unless you mean "decent" from the perspective of unscrupulous gambling sites who are looking to scam people out of money.
While I'm skeptical of the project, as expressed in another comment, that's not really an unusual disclaimer for a project like this on first announcement. It takes time to figure out all the legalities in all the different jurisdictions, and not having such a disclaimer could get them into a lot of trouble down the road.
I read a little bit and it seems critical. EFFORCE is dedicated to energy saving, but it mentions "mining" without any algorithm details. Assuming it is Proof-of-Work like Bitcoin (since it does "mining"), then why would they use the absolutely energy inefficient algorithm to save energy?
How an energy saving platform not mention any efforts to save energy in their tech itself?
> For the entire duration of the contract, the
Beneficiary pays a part of the energy savings
generated to the E.s.Co. This gives a return on
the initial investment.
> The greater the energy savings obtained by the Beneficiary, the greater the returns for the Esco
and the Contributors, since the savings generated are the actual financial performance of the initial
investment.
So, contractors figure out how to make a company more energy efficient, and in return they get a cut of the savings they saved the company.
> the company can use EFFORCE to look for the necessary
crowdfunding to proceed with the energy redevelopment projects, in exchange for sharing the
savings generated.
"So, contractors figure out how to make a company more energy efficient, and in return they get a cut of the savings they saved the company."
Which is why it is a real world job. And companies contract such people to either want to save money on their own, or because they have to, because of some law.
"> the company can use EFFORCE to look for the necessary crowdfunding to proceed with the energy redevelopment projects, in exchange for sharing the savings generated. "
But this and the whole need of the blockchain, sounds so vague and overly complicated and the outcome either, that I doubt, you find enough gullible people, wanting to do the hassle of studying it with enough detail, to not oversee some nasty catch, costing you even more in the end, than you could ever save.
Because Efforce ... wants to somehow make money, too.
Ignoring the blockchain aspect of this for a second, the underlying model her makes me a little hopeful it can tackle some of the more frustrating problems I've experienced in designing energy-efficient buildings, if it ever catches on.
In the building construction industry, there's a huge gap between an optimal energy performing construction and what finally gets built, due to the immense reluctance of clients to deal with the upfront cost or uncertainty associated with newer, high-performing constructions and technologies. It's somewhat mitigated in the commercial sector since commercial clients have incentive to "brand" their buildings as sustainable, but it's depressing as hell in the residential sector. Although it would definitely be harder (albeit, have way more impact) to use the EFFORCE model during new construction versus retrofits.
* How is the "20% Incentive for Mining" reconciled with the supposed energy-saving goal?
* Does Woz have trustworthy advisors for whether to get involved in things like this?
* What does the EFF think about the big, thick block letters "EFF" at the start of this company's logo? The company also spells their name in all-caps as "EFFORCE" in text of their site. ("EFFORCE" sounds more like a commando unit of the EFF, which is arguably a better idea than a blockchain ICO&mining scheme with the pretext of saving energy.)
> What does the EFF think about the big, thick block letters "EFF" at the start of this company's logo?
To be honest, I really hate the new "big, thick block letters" EFF logo. The flat design trend destroyed the good original EFF logo and turned it into three featureless and boring letters. The fact that "EFFORCE" can create a logo that looks like the EFF using nothing but three capital letters is the proof of how featureless the logo is.
So... energy performance contracting with the word "blockchain" glued on the end.
This is not the first time people have proposed this, someone even pitched this to our research group not long ago.
The basic idea of broadening the investment base for EPC is like any kind of crowdsourced investment to cut out the middleman of institutional investors (instead of giving my money to a bank to invest in EPC, I do it myself). With the same downside that individuals are usually much worse judges of projects than institutions, so what you gain in reduced costs you lose in high risk.
Then comes the blockchain bit, which suffers exactly the same problem of every project I've seen like this which is there is no technological way to tie the tokens to the energy use. Saving energy cannot 'generate' tokens, therefore you have to come up with a contract that ties the energy savings value to the value of the tokens. In which case there is basically no difference to just using cash since all the 'security' of the arrangement comes from contractual obligations, which are easier to create and more reliable to enforce using regular currency.
Same for blockchain-based recycling tracking (which Chinese government had been investing in a couple years ago), etc.
My issue with all of those ideas is that they are essentially trying (even if failing, for now) to devise ways for humans to trust fellow humans with less.
Contrast the experience of using the railway in South Korea (typically you never have to show your ticket) and China (where staff went through my luggage and confiscated shaving gel of all things): setting aside any legitimate justifications for either treatment, one makes you feel like a fugitive who should not be trusted most of the time while the other treats you like a responsible and honest adult—and we all know how labeling works.
Will it be impossible to address, in a post-scarcity society, the underlying issues that cause humans to lie to or hurt each other? Do we actually have to resort to dressing more and more of inter-human interaction into a straightjacket of never-forgetting blockchain?
I love Wozniak, but is track record of founding companies after Apple hasn't exactly been stellar. Anybody else here remember WoZ? Woz-U? That VC fund he co-founded? Entrepreneurship clearly isn't his strong suit.
I was at an event where Joe Lonsdale spoke a couple months ago.
He took questions after giving a short speech.
One person asked what he thinks about blockchain-based businesses.
Joe basically said "These days, in Silicon Valley, if anyone brings up a business idea that involves blockchain, that's how you know that team doesn't know what they're doing."
Basically, to paraphrase, people trying to throw blockchain into business concepts is like throwing like spaghetti against walls. Investors, according to Joe Lonsdale, do not typically find such ideas respectable-- in fact, the opposite: they seem to find them comical and gimmicky.
I talked to Joe briefly on the phone about ten years ago. He has a very sharp mind for financial related startups and his insights truly impressed me. If he said this, it says something to me.
Blockchain scammers just love to latch onto celebrities with a cause, and feed off of their reputations. It's a pity it's happened to Woz again.
Who remembers how Imogen Heap's blockchain based "Creative Passport" would solve all the music industry's efficiency and fairness problems? Her mi.mu gloves are pretty cool though, but they don't need blockchain.
Imogen Heap: Mycelia's Creative Passport and reimagining the music industry
Multi award winning artist Imogen Heap shares how she's creating a fairer music industry with Mycelia's Creative Passport and demonstrates how to make music with her wearable tech mi.mu gloves.
>Heap developed the Mi.Mu Gloves, a line of musical gloves, as well as a blockchain-based music-sharing program, Mycelia. She also composed the music for the West End/Broadway play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Over the course of her career, she has received two Grammy Awards, one Ivor Novello Award, and one Drama Desk Award. In July 2019, Heap was awarded an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music.
Imogen Heap's Mycelia: An Artists' Approach for a Fair Trade Music Business, Inspired by Blockchain
>“It sounds a bit far fetched maybe right now, but I really believe it’s attainable,” Heap adds. “We just need musicians to put their foot forward and sign up for something that isn’t really there yet. There’s no ecosystem there, there’s no marketplace there. Will you put the flag in the ground showing that you’re here?”
That sounds awfully reductive. While it's obviously true that many blockchain-based businesses are/were just trying to cash in on hype alone, that doesn't mean that ALL ideas involving a blockchain are bad.
Just that all people involving a blockchain are bad, who will fuck up even the few good ideas involving a blockchain, in their quest to get rich quick without actually doing any difficult work or providing any useful services.
I'm sure there exist a few rusty metal sewage snakes in need of lubrication, but that's not what most people are selling snake oil for.
So you actually think these scammers who have latched onto Woz are legitimate??! Have you sent them your money yet? How's that going, are you at the top of the pyramid? How much are you in for? Are you rich quick yet?
The situation is bad enough that anyone with an idea that isn't bad would do best to rename or obscure the "blockchain" connection.
Not only does attaching to it act as a fairly reliable indicator of fraud or cluelessness, but it also means that you'll be constantly wasting your time deflecting suggestions to copy practices which are illegal, unethical, or just technically unsound from the majority of other 'blockchain' based ventures.
One thing Joe mentioned was the potential for illicit activity within the encrypted data inherent in blockchain.
He brought up an example whereby some user could hide something very illegal within the encrypted data.
To be honest, I don't know enough about block chain or the blockchain economy, but the idea of hiding data/URLs related to very illicit content definitely makes me think it could be abused. Especially since decryption would be necessary to uncover the abusive usage (i.e. the concealing of illicit content/URLs to illicit content)
What's charming about Wozniak is that pretty early in his life, he made enough money to follow whatever whimsical idea struck him, and he never worried too much about failure anymore.
The less charming aspect is that I don't think he really had much skin in the game in any of his post-Apple efforts, and some people who went along with them probably could not afford their failure as easily as he could (although I've never heard first hand testimony to that effect).
And this particular company seems downright snake oil, with Wozniak serving as a figurehead. John McAfee with less sex, drugs, and harm to whales.
The guy is nerding out. In his interviews it never seems like he cares about the business side just the tech side. I kinda hope that some day I can just create companies to nerd out.
where people argue whether Wozniak really qualifies as a successful entrepreneur or not
OK, I'll bite.
First of all nobody is denying that he/Apple was extremely successful. The argument is if entrepreneurship was his strong point, and I think most people would agree that it isn't. Nobody is denying that he was probably one of the greatest programmers of his generation and that is engineering genius was fundamental to kickstarting one of the most successful tech companies in the world.
You can absolutely found an extremely successful company without being a great entrepreneur if other things align, like having a co-founder who is a great entrepreneur and having a truly groundbreaking product.
A a successful entrepreneur is someone who founds a profitable corporation. Whatever skills are required to do that is completely arguable and also completely irrelevant, if the corporation is indeed successful.
Entrepreneurship is not being good at sales. It's not being a good leader. It's also not being a good coder and it's not being good at whatever metric you might feel is important. It's about founding an (eventually) profitable company.
sounds like a case of the good old arguing over the definition of words. You seem to interpret "successful" as "technically successful", that is having achieved success at one point, whereas others might be more inclined to interpret it as "skilled" or "consistently successful"
(which is to say, there isn't actually a real disagreement here, except over how language is parsed)
i think he definitely contributed to the success of apple in a big way, and it's hard to argue otherwise, but not really due to his entrepreneurial expertise
The Woz is a legendary engineer, no one doubts that.
He's a worse-than-average entrepreneur, and I'd wager that without the other Steve, the Apple I would have been one of the many promising microcomputers which fizzled out.
Really? This will sound petty, but there is no redeeming quality about Jobs, he surely seems to have been an awful person. All his strong points: "Taste", ruthlessness,"reality distortion field" are more the traits of a sociopath than anything else. Great if he is managing a company you have stocks in, but you could say the same if he were managing your "plantation".
The first thing I saw was that the tokens are called WOZX, which looks to be either a marketing gimmick or ego-centric naming. Either way, a bad sign. To me such marketing devices or personality-centric companies often means the underlying business will be less scrutinized and thought-out, so more likely to fail at some stage.
Not sure the real world agrees. Including almost every other law, accounting, and financial practice - personality-centric companies make up a non-trivial percentage of the worlds most iconic brands.
Just off the top of my head:
Disney
Bloomberg
Automattic
Air Jordan
Craigslist
Baskin-Robbins
Andreesen-Horowitz
Kleiner Perkins
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati
Fenwick & West
Sure, those companies use people's names in their names, but they're not all personality-centric (though that's a subjective assessment).
In this list, I see really only 1 - Disney. Air Jordan isn't a company, it's a brand from another company - Nike.
The others may have been named after their founders, but the companies are not about their founders and weren't started/successful because of the relationship with the founder.
Blockchain and energy-saving in same sentence sounds like oxymoron. But yeah "relatively" it probably would be.
edit: checked out the whitepaper, its not even about the blockchain saving any energy itself. instead you save energy somewhere and record it on blockchain... for ... ?
At the moment Ethereum "2.0" is a scheme to manipulate the market price of ethereum by printing a whole bunch of additional ethereum out of thin air and awarding it to people who lock up their funds completely out of circulation for an unspecified time (considering that this "launch" is now years after the the original claims, the claimed >1 year should not be read as strong evidence of only one year).
Because the new system is completely unusable there was absolutely no legitimate purpose to start this lockup at this time as a public system rather than just some fake-money test network.
Once (if?) it becomes usable it will have the additional ultimate property of further enriching the beneficiaries of Ethereum's 72 million coin pre-mine, since those super large positions are effectively illiquid (can't sell more than a small share without crashing the price), its low risk for those parties to place large amounts in lockup.
The concept of "proof of stake" has fundamental soundness problems which have not been addressed except by obscuring it with deceptive obfuscation and protecting it against peer review through sheer complexity. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Adopted in a very successful manner? What does that mean? What a ridiculous standard. Technology exists, if you don't use it its not the fault of the tech.
Its not hard to understand: "if X has green and non-green options, and you choose non-green, that doesn't mean you can claim X is non-green."
The issue was an implementation bug afaict and from official responses.
Solana is clearly BFT, unlike what Emin claims.
To be fair, I don't expect Solana to be as centralised as other chains only for the reason that you need a gaming rig to run a consensus node. Solana is not centralised for the reasons you mention.
A central blockchain has not a lot more energy use than a regular database. It's the distributed trustless proof of work kinda blockchain that mindlessly burns up energy.
A central blockchain is an oxymoron: a pointless waste of time. A distributed, trustless, permissionless data structure on the other hand is a useful thing to have for a small number of use-cases.
I don't quite get the actual mechanism by which this incentivizes energy efficiency investments, or why blockchain is required vs normal debt, but the "blockchain, but for climate solutions" idea appears in "The Ministry for the Future", where it also looks like a weird idea.
I'm about 2/3 through it. I also thought the blockchain stuff was a bit weird and buzzwordy, but technology is not really the point of this book. It's more about the kinds of social/political/economic changes needed to address climate change and other problems, which in this case includes ecoterrorism and revolution.
For a non-blockchain version of this, in Europe there has been an effort towards developing and implementing a system called USEF [1], which allows entities like power stations, speculators and aggregators like British Gas across Europe to make available and trade future energy supply and demand contracts over chosen time periods.
At my last job, we tried to make an initial implementation of this, but the specification was extremely complex, and even worse, ambiguous in many places. We were frequently unable as a group to agree on what the specification meant. Maybe it has improved in the two years since I left.
Don't see how Woz's involvement here makes this any more likely to succeed. The guy was a 1000x engineer 40 years ago and is obviously still smart, but hasn't really needed to keep any particular skills sharp for four decades and he is one of five co-founders. Sounds like some dabbling to me.
Wild. It's not like blockchains are in any way a clearly proven, established thing.
In fact, considering that we are stilling waiting for the first tangible contribution to society out of the blockchain field that matches its surrounding hype, I would argue that doing things differently is probably a good idea.
Why wouldn't you just setup a traditional market like we do with other commodities, rather than a blockchain? If you are trading in something that exists in the real world (like energy savings), you already need some central authority to verify people are being honest, so a blockchain doesn't provide any benefit over having that central authority manage the data.
I love the idea of having markets for more things (ex. in Ontario we have cap and trade for carbon emissions), but the blockchain idea makes no sense.
Yes, absolutely. With Bitcoin people protect their hard earned savings from rampant inflation present in many countries. With Monero people regain their right to financial privacy online.
I mean you publish all Bitcoin transactions on a global ledger so I suspect in this metaphor you’re the one with the stall door open. My bank doesnt share my transactions except as required by law in the event of suspicious activity.
But if we’re going to play this game, if everyone walking into the bathroom came out with a renewed sense of self esteem, a nose bleed and a sudden urge to dance, yes, I think you would be looked at sideways for closing the door. What’s lacking from your rhetorical question is context.
Are you of the opinion that people shouldn't have the right of financial privacy online? Or is this just a quippy way of dismissing cryptocurrency as a concept?
How do you know that? And even if it was true, what is the underlying point? I don't see the "hardly anybody uses Monero for anything other than crime (right now)" -> "cryptocurrency is useless" argument working.
The point is people have a right to financial privacy and cryptocurrencies are one possible way of achieving this. Therefore, cryptocurrencies are not a priori useless.
I'm not even talking about Monero or the particularities of its current dominant usage as I think this is irrelevant for the above point.
Ok, so we are at real use number 3. after "pyramid / get rich quick scheme" and "volatile high risk investment", the "evading the bank system, shady financial transactions and tax evasion" part.
You may want to evade the banking system even if you don't want to evade taxes: I was always very frugal and hard working in my life, and just put more and more money on my bank account to be safe. I didn't invest in the stock market or houses, as I thought that they are overvalued. Then one day in 2013 I saw that in Cyprus the banks just took away money from other people, who saved all their lives. It felt close, because I'm also from the EU, and Cyprus is not a 3rd world country....that's when I bought Bitcoin with a part of my money, because I understood it that if I keep the private key secure, nobody can take it away from me.
Until, completely hypothetically, some sketchy company creates $20 billion out of thin air and uses it to pump the price of all Bitcoin (including yours) to insane speculative heights... and then the bubble pops.
I have lost and gained back 80% of my net worth multiple times at this point...I don't care...I mean of course it's a bad feeling, but it's a part of life that I can weather much better than my friends. I'm still more scared of bank accounts, as the banks don't have the same transparency.
So you’re scared of bank accounts that by your own mesure haven’t harmed you. In fact since the creation of the FDIC after the Great Depression, not a single American has lost a single penny to bank failure - even though numerous economic calamities have ensued in the interim.
Instead you dumped your life savings into something that’s demonstrably wrecked you a few times, at one point leaving you with 20% (?!) of what you started with? If you don’t care about what’s in there, as you mustn’t to be ok with that, why do you care about putting it into a bank account? Because of the Cypriot banking crisis of 2012? On a tiny island in the Mediterranean split between 3 countries (the Greeks, the Turks and a pair of British overseas territories serving as military bases from when the whole island was under their administration) known for its shaky financial system? 4% of the land mass of Cyprus is a UN buffer zone between the various belligerents!
I mean you know how that reads right? It sounds a bit like the anti-vaxxers of finance.
You picked the country with one of the best financial systems in the world. Also are you sure? 90 years ago US was on the gold standard. Are you sure you can still get the gold that was promised 90 years ago?
If you see the amount of debt being created and not payed back, it’s just a system designed for risk takers. I was buying phyisical gold as well, but over time switched to Bitcoin + having an own apartment in case I lose it all.
For me just the legal definition of being a creditor to the bank when I wanted to own my money didn’t feel right.
You’re not supposed to save money you’re supposed to use it to buy assets with value and save them. You keep a small amount liquid in the bank as a rainy day fund and the rest goes into assets of your choosing.
> Also are you sure? 90 years ago US was on the gold standard. Are you sure you can still get the gold that was promised 90 years ago?
If I wanted gold I’d buy it. My comment was about bank failures — dollars - not their redemption capabilities. It is true fact. What you’re describing is a default, external to the banking system that did happen and would not affect you if you used money like you’re supposed to, as a temporary store of value to buy assets with.
> If you see the amount of debt being created and not payed back, it’s just a system designed for risk takers.
None of this matters at all if you buy assets with it like I said. Which is what you were doing. The system works.
Again, not true. You can’t just buy gold whenever you want, just when it’s unpopular:
Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.
That only happened because the USD was backed by gold, and the Federal Reserve's supply was running low.
"The main rationale behind the order was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve preventing it from increasing the money supply during the depression. The Federal Reserve Act (1913) required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes that were issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit, in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes, which could be backed by the gold in its possession"
If I credit a bank money and it defaults on it, I don’t care about the reasons, I just said that US banks also took away money in the last 100 years, just like in every other country in the world. I don’t trust them with my life savings. You can if you want, that’s called freedom.
One is a bank defaulting on its obligations to provide you a certain number of units of currency regardless of their market value. This has not happened since the FDIC was created in the wake of the Great Depression.
Another is a sovereign default where the country decides not to honour its obligations to those holding units of its currency or its debts. This has happened ~6 times in the history of the United States, and I do include the cancellation of the gold withdrawal rights as a sovereign default. This has nothing to do with the FDIC or your bank.
I can't stress this enough, neither of these things matter to you if you do what you're supposed to with money, which is not keep your life savings in a mattress or a savings account, but use it as a temporary store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account and buy things with it. Gold, real estate, magic beans, I don't care. This is practically ECON-101.
On the subject of freedom, backing all currency with gold eliminates my right to choose what I back my personal economy with. A gold backed currency has strictly less freedom than a fiat currency. I can today choose to back my personal economy with gold, silver, platinum, magic beans (crypto) or Apple stock by leveraging a brokerage account and a credit card. If you believe in freedom, it's actually what you want.
Hard fork is very different from double spend attack that miners can try. As long as I run my full node when accepting Bitcoin, I can choose which node I run (I guess I don't give away a big a secret if I tell you that I run Bitcoin Core).
The DAO hard fork happened because most people with economic power who run nodes in Ethereum accept Vitaly's decision. With Bitcoin there's a concensus at this point that only bug fix hard forks are accepted.
On the contrary. Just because something attracts money doesn't mean it adds value. In fact, the opposite can be true.
In this case, CryptoKitties purchases represent money that was diverted from intrinsically valuable goods and services: cars, fruit, haircuts, shoes, software, and so on.
Every dollar spent on CryptoKitties was a dollar that didn't go to a farmer, a plumber, or a musician. That's not creating economic value; it's destroying it.
[edit: this comment is outdated. the parent comment is updated now to change the word crypto to cryptocurrency. I misunderstood earlier crypto to be cryptography. with crypto meaning cryptocurrency my comment is not related now.]
I think it has. Worldwide ecommerce runs on cryptography. there are laws and regulations on how crypto should be made secure and managed in ecommerce.
if you mean blockchain cryptocurrency by the word crypto then you may be correct. but in general terms crypto has a lot of actual legal value for it.
Yes. Fabrica [0] uses crypto/tokens to tokenize land in the US and allow buy/sell operations in a few seconds. I guess you can call it "providing a legal value"?
Disclaimer: ex co-founder, left the company at the end of 2018, still in good terms with them.
I was expecting they had solved some sort of Proof-of-Savings. The "without intermediaries based on exact consumption/savings data" sounds more like filling a ledger to resolve a smart contract. How exactly verification achieved is left unanswered.
With grid-energy blockchains there is a tangible good. But decreased power consumption by one metric doesn't assure power is not used off platform. (not to mention the green-ness of any such generation)
Posted this a few days ago but didn't get any traction. My comment from last time:
Not sure I fully understand this one, perhaps I missed it in the white paper.
The more traditional method of this is the investors fund the project and then the benefitting company pays the investors a portion of what they would have been paying the utility companies if it hadn't been for the upgrad project. It's not clear to me if that actually takes place in the Efforce method, does the benefitting company have to buy tokens to pay the investors?
Also, if all savings are calculated based on meter readings sent "directly" to the chain, how do you account for changes in energy requirements due to upsizing or downsizing or any other change not covered by the contract? A mechanism for this would seem to require a method of putting a thumb on the scale, and if that's he case then why use the token instead of the more traditional method.
It seems this token runs on Ethereum which is in the process of moving to Proof-Of-Stake, dramatically reducing the power consumption of the network. Which doesn't mean I'm a particular fan of this solution, but it is different to running it on top of BTC.
Ethereum, which this project operates on, will eventually fully transition to Proof of Stake. In any case it's possible for the energy for Proof of Work to come entirely from renewables.
Just because it's possible to power proof of work with renewable energy does not mean it's a good idea. That renewable energy could be used instead to power things that we need, rather than to power what is essentially energy price arbitrage.
Well, renewable energy exists in many places where it cannot otherwise be utilized, due to the cost of energy transmission, so PoW could utilize those sources, since transmitting PoW is much cheaper than transmitting the energy it takes to produce it.
Or we could move our scientific computing workloads to places where that renewable energy is, as transmitting the results of scientific computation is much cheaper than moving the energy.
I'm not saying that Proof of Work algorithms have no value at all, but I believe they have very little value to humanity compared to most other uses for that energy, and increase the costs of energy in many cases for most other applications.
Currently Proof of Work spends energy to create a betting market for rich people. Maybe in the future there might be useful application of it, but we've yet to get any further than theorising and small scale demonstrations.
Currently Proof of Work is deemed by the market to be valuable, by definition, so it is merely speculation that the market is over-valuing cryptocurrency that your claim that PoW is not valuable is based on.
Anyway, I would agree that if the PoW had a secondary purpose, like enhancing the efficiency of the blockchain, or providing scientific compututation, it would provide more value to humanity.
My instinct was to close the site immediately but decided to read what Woz is up to.
Navigation didn't work for some stuff on mogile but I dowloaded the PDF whitepaper and I must say this is more shallow than most "tokens".
If I understand correctly, people invest money into a pool that is distributed for companies/industries to spend, in order to increase their energy efficiency. Once they are done ("once" should be "if"), part of their savings goes to the investors. I think it is reasonable to assume that such process doesn't need any crypto proof and ultimately depends on lawyers, salesmen and bankers. Making a company or an industry more efficient requires talent and strategy, not just pouring money and it is a very risky and long process. If these guys feel competent to make a profitable energy efficiency fund, they should start one. And with clear legal protection for the investors, not a token.
> I think it is reasonable to assume that such process doesn't need any crypto proof and ultimately depends on lawyers, salesmen and bankers.
This is true of basically every single cryptocurrency project.
The main problem the cryptocurrency tends to solve is that the lawyers, salesmen and bankers have an annoying tendency to insist you follow the law and don't steal everything.
It has the AM/FM trust problem wherein a business will always trust paper contracts and lawyers over Fucking Magic like this.
Edit: Good example, estate transfers and mortgages are a potentially quite good use-case for blockchain. Why is nobody using it? Because it's Fucking Magic.. nobody with a sensible risk profile is going to replace a "contracts and lawyers" process that works well-enough with Fucking Magic.
In cases of property transfers the lack of trust in blockchain is understandable because contracts and lawyers can annul your “fucking magic” due to local legislatures.
Yeah it's just a different way of managing a fund or investment company. Just that there is less regulatory oversight for the managing entity (bad for you), and a large part of the tokens is owned by them, so they can bring a lot of new tokens into the market.
The fact that it's a blockchain likely makes it attractive to some people, so maybe it was chosen for marketing/hype reasons. Would it have landed at the hn front page had it been a traditional investment company? Likely not.
Their claim in one section of the white pages is that blockchain provides reliable data serialisation, so keeping track of how many KWh you saved, for example, becomes trustworthy. By this logic though, all financial services and human data aggregators should be running on blockchain instead of a regular old database.
Well, arguably a lot more financial services at least. It just can't happen yet because blockchains don't scale enough.
A while back I read Matt Taibbi's book The Divide. Chapter 8 was about collection on delinquent credit card debt, and it was horrifying. According to Taibbi, "the bulk of the credit card collection business is conducted without any supporting documentation showing up or being seen by human eyes at any part of the process....in the overwhelmed modern court system, simply attesting to having the right documentation works just as well as really having it."
According to one judge, "On a regular basis this court encounters defendants being sued on the same debt by more than one creditor alleging it is the assignee of the original credit card obligation." It's also common for lenders to claim delinquency despite the loan actually being paid.
In theory, defendants can challenge all this but even if they could afford lawyers, they often don't even know they're getting sued. When they don't show up there's a default judgement against them and their wages get garnished.
If we had a really scalable blockchain to run all this, including the loan payments and loan sales, then courts could automatically check this stuff. We have the tech now to maintain sufficient privacy for borrowers.
Of course we wouldn't need a blockchain if courts were doing their job, but a pure software solution is likely cheaper than spending a lot more tax money to examine paper documents.
The lender is required to make an effort to contact the borrower (as in "you've been served") but since it's in their interest to make a very cursory effort, that's what they do. Some people get the notice but a lot don't. Notices going to old addresses are common. Generally lenders pay a third party and iirc some of those were caught making no effort at all.
What you described just seems like a form of financing. Companies would presumably invest in energy saving and get some future savings which they can use to repay the financing. Companies can (and many do) already tap existing credit lines to invest in projects that save them energy (costs).
I'm reminded of Matt Levine's comments on crypto:
> The blockchain-y reinvention of everything in the financial world -- money, contracts, companies -- is fascinating and impressive and, viewed from a certain angle, adorable. But sometimes it could stand to learn from what has gone before. After all, the elements of finance -- money, contracts, companies -- have already been invented. Perhaps their historical development might hold some lessons for their re-inventors.
A price already exists on energy and companies have an incentive to reduce their energy consumption if only to save money. Maybe you don't agree with the price, or maybe you don't agree with the cost of financing, but those two levers you can more directly control and certainly don't require blockchain
For much of the western world energy use per person has flat-lined or started decreasing. This appears to be a fairly robust effect, you can see that Taiwan had very consistent growth until ~2007 at which point their trend closely matches USA/France/Germany.
The tremendous growth in energy consumption is mostly developing nations, mostly Asia, starting to live closer to how developed nations live.
Otherwise, I don't see how they'll offset the carbon cost of the coin itself; which is a paradox I don't think they can overcome if I'm understanding this correctly.
Put it on top of an existing blockchain and the incremental carbon cost will probably be low. Put it on a proof-of-stake blockchain and it'll be essentially zero.
Flagged. This is an equity that happens to have a coin, not a real cryptocoin.
Seemingly novel ideas like binding medical or scientific research with cryptocoins means extending trust. Which means that the cryptocoin is just along for the ride and to hype the investment. It's not decentralized and trustless.
With very rare exceptions: primecoin was designed to help uncover specific chains of primes.
> EFFORCE Tokens are ERC20 Utility Tokens based on the Ethereum blockchain.
No pun intended: an energy saving platform based on an energy inefficient blockchain. I should expect them to choose another blockchain or wait for Eth2.
I've had kind of the opposite idea: Use bitcoin mining to consume excess electricity. Excess electricity is already an issue in European grids and resulted in negative power prices (for example in April: https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/why-power-prices-...). Rather than just heating water with the excess power, mining bitcoin during these times could be much more profitable.
1. it's illegal
2. when u need a frequent external data feed to blockchain ("smart meters") you'r already screwed. can't do that without compromise in trust element
3. it's centralized so can be easily shut down
4. if u wanna invest in energy u don't need to use a speculative coin to "select the project"
5. I don't care if it's Wozniak or Steve Jobs coming from it's grave, it's a fucking shitcoin.
Don't do it. There is amazing tech out there. I hate to see this
Have any projections been made on the net effect on the environment of EFFORCE? It seems a bit ironic to me that a project laser-focused on energy efficiency depends on blockchain, which massively contributes to electricity consumption and carbon emissions.
I'm with you. Plant some trees, no need to prove it. Look into fast growing trees for your agricultural zone. Look into pruning techniques like pollarding to keep trees small. Use pruned dried material to make charcoal (has many uses in fish farming) and then charge it up with goodies to make biochar and finally bury it into your garden for a slow release fertilizer which lasts for hundreds or potentially thousands of years.
Almost 6-8 cofounders, nobody other than woz as big or as impactful. Weirdness on chain validation and all over the site. TBH I wonder if woz is really with them really co-founding or this is just like a kick-scammer.
I don't know, but story time about another celebrity much admired for his past achievements.
Stan Lee was involved with a company called Stan Lee Media back around 2000 or so. Turns out his business partner was attempting to use it as a pump and dump scheme, and fucked off to Brazil when he heard the Feds were sniffing. But it gets stranger! When Stan Lee himself reacquired control of the content he created for SLM through a new company called Pow! Entertainment after SLM went bankrupt, his former business partner tried to sue him, from federal prison using intermediaries, to reacquire control of all of Stan Lee's creations, including Marvel properties like Spider-Man! The ensuing legal battle would dog Lee for the rest of his life -- kinda like how SCO v. IBM is unresolved to this day, there's still a little stub of a company trying to assert copyright over Linux.
I think Wozniak, like Lee, may have innocently gotten involved with some shady characters. Hey, it's California, it's the tech industry, these things happen.
He was probably struck by the appeal of an environmental proposal combined with a (casual?) interest in cryptocoins. Without really understanding how they work, it would be easy to get sucked in.
Markets are very efficient, but if there's no cost to pollution then there's nothing to optimize or compete about. If companies had to pay the actual environmental costs of what they are doing then they would find better ways to do them in an instant, just like they have come up with incredibly efficient ways to spin yarn, build cars and everything in between.
If you have a reliable plan for getting governments to actually do that, great. We've been trying for decades now. Until it happens it's just rainbows and unicorns and we need to do what we can without them.
Markets tend not to price in externalities they can avoid, sadly. They’re great at lots of things but sometimes they need a finger to help balance the scales.
Is it possible that Woz is having money troubles? I couldn't imagine a co-founder of a multi-trillion dollar company needing a quick payday. But the more I read about this venture, the less likely any alternate explanation seems.
Wozniak hasn't been part of Apple since 1985 (he does still receive a paycheck, though). His net worth is somewhere around $100 million USD depending on source.
From the whitepaper where the terms and conditions attempt to eliminate any jurisdiction by the SEC:
Restricted Persons. The sale of EFFORCE tokens is not directed at, and each purchaser of EFFORCE tokens will be required to represent, among other things, that they are not: (a) a citizen, resident (tax or otherwise) of, a person located or domiciled in, or any entity organized in or owned by certain persons in (i) the United States (including any U.S. Person pursuant to the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (as amended)),
. . . In addition, each purchaser of EFFORCE tokens will be required to represent that such purchaser is outside of the United States at the time of agreeing to purchase the tokens, was outside of the United States at the time any offers to sell or any offers to buy the token were reviewed, and will be outside of the United States at any time that such purchaser performs its obligations under the Token Purchase Agreement.
Purchaser Sophistication.
EFFORCE tokens are speculative and involve a high degree of risk and uncertainty . . .
In other words, it's apparent they are not wasting their time or money registering with the SEC. Expect the SEC to respond with something to the effect that "regardless of all your terms and conditions if ANY US based person buys your Efforce token you are now subject to our rules and we will litigate" . . . same result as if anyone offshore sells anything unsuspectingly/unknowingly to a US citizen the US authorities immediately claim jurisdiction and ability to litigate/arrest/prosecute.
. . . and the private placement listed at 45% - - these are the investors/creators taking their very sizeable cut of the deal, not a particularly altruistic percentage.
Appears a bunch of Italians went seeking a world famous personality to be the frontman "image" for their token deal . . . . and booked the Woz. Wonder what his cut of the deal is ?
The only blockchain that seems to be addressing the energy problem is Chia. Ethereum already has issues with energy usage, even more so, Bitcoin. I think this could work ideally on Chia protocol https://www.chia.net/
At the same time, I fear that he has picked a weird way to address climate change.
It is VERY unclear from the beginning what Efforce actually is. Almost at the bottom, you see it's an ICO.
Perhaps we can describe it as the equivalent of a carbon offsetting marketplace, just for energy?
Well, if that's the case... It doesn't need a blockchain, and it doesn't need a token. It can be done, today, in dollars and euros.
If there's a token, and a token sale, Efforce and its founders will benefit from it, even if their efforts will not positively impact the world. That's unfair.
Why not, instead, reward them in a "normal" way - create an energy efficiency marketplace, earn a commission on the energy "traded" there, voilà. No blockchain, no token sale, no bullshit.
Am I wrong? If so, what did I not understand?
Edit: I see that EFFORCE is listed/tradeable, and apparently worth ~$950M already, which makes me even more suspicious... [0]
[0]: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/steve-wozniaks-blockchain-ven...
Statements like this make me question the truthiness of the entire venture. If they chose Malta for specific tax reasons or laws, just say so! Most rational people are going to read this and have their bullshit detector go off (for better or for worse).
This assumption should be strong enough that attaching a famous name to them should not change your position much.
The restriction free rewards for issuing an ICO are nearly unfathomable. Millions to billion dollars of dumb money flowing it based only on tens of thousands of dollars in marketing. Some people find it easy to rationalize.
In a situation like this involved parties might feel it's justified because the money they're defrauding out of the public could be applied to a virtuous cause.
Are they ever not fraud or a scheme to enrich the architects of the scheme?
Moreover, there is a huge lemon market problem: If if an issuer is in the the (say) 1% of honest efforts they are in constant competition with fraud, under pressure to make misleading fraud-like promises and offer fraud-like returns-- prudent parties realize this and exit knowing that they have better options. So investors are left with the honest participants that were too clueless to realize this or not attractive enough to have other alternatives.
The Ethereum ICO is a good, rare example of non-fraudulent ICO.
Note that startups also enrich their founders, although usually not in massive upfront cash payments.
It's yet another example of the misconception that blockchain somehow guarantees data validity. In reality it does the opposite: it reduces tampering, sure, but there are other ways to reduce tampering that don't also forbid validation. A broken meter will put bad data on the blockchain just the same as it will any other database, but because you're using blockchain you now can't go back and fix it when you find the error.
If you are right then I'd hope you'd start an efficiency as a service company that covers upgrade costs up front and collects payments over time. There is a huge lack of providers in the space that are a few thousand dollar or less upgrades with payouts over about two years. You can see the challenge, you have to spend less than a few hundred dollars in overhead/transactions over a multi year relationship!
The vast majority of companies in this space are targeting large facilities with multi million dollar upgrades, because it is hard to make the numbers work otherwise.
Block chain doesn't validate things happening in the real world (energy saved, KWh consumed) only auditors/inspectors can do that. The data from the smart meter can always be faked before it goes to the blockchain network.
Have I missed something? I'd be inclined to give Woz the benefit of the doubt on most things but I don't get what blockchain gives here apart from marketing BS - for which its a year or two behind the times?
For aspects such as meters or constantly changing physical data, I am not sure if it will ever be possible to ensure the authenticity of physical -> digital touchpoint.
Is this something an embedded processor can help resolve ? In essence eliminating the possibility of fake data emerging from the meters ?
Usually a company will not generate its own energy. Depending on the country, the infrastructure is sometimes publicly owned and managed.
Maybe the physical -> digital touchpoint here could be outside the boundaries of the company. The energy grid should report those numbers as references, to subscribers agreed upon by the company for example. There it could be certified by the government.
Or something like that?
Edit: Well of course now there would be an incentive to burn petrol to run turbines and generate locally, then turn them off to capitalize on a high in the energy efficiency security market...
exactly. Everytime with this smart meter comes up, this is the crucial thing that just doesn't make sense. No replacement for "auditors/inspectors"!
Some people, when confronted with a problem, think "I know, I'll use Oracle." Now they have two problems.
https://blog.codinghorror.com/regular-expressions-now-you-ha...
At the end of the day a subscription model is probably easier.
The step change in software/OS from boxed to subscription will continue to next phase. With AI the current subscription model is probably not granular enough. Every device/robot will switch tasks and capabilities and upgrades/downgrades with such a frequency that traditional subscription breaks (refunds/tax/fees etc) so blockchain subscription per device without human interaction will probably work better. AI is bots learning from bots which is already distributed, so centralizing that may be inefficient (high bandwidth).
(works in progress, some more like app stores)
No amount of private keys and digital block chain security is going to provide physical security
Under those conditions it's always possible to divert power to 'adjust' the perceived power usage.
My point was that block chain doesn't validate anything - a private key will prove that the data (good or bad) is from the specific user, block chain won't validate that its good.
This is only true for corrupted miners. That is not an issue in this case because the company controls 100% of miners (and therefore, you are trusting them not to write bad data).
It is completely irrelevant to the question of corrupted clients, which no blockchain can guarantee against. All you have to do is attach some bypassing wires to the input and output of your "blockchain-enabled smart meter" to write completely fraudulent entries to the history that can never be fixed.
> (and it's a very expensive and wasteful way to do so)
No it isn't. You're confusing blockchain (the algorithm) with Proof-of-Work (a method for providing decentralized consensus).
> Blockchain does nothing to verify the correctness of the data it holds, only its consistency with the history.
Correct. Nor does any other data structure. Blockchain is literally just a data structure, nothing more.
the original comment was about selling mislabeled energy.
Not sure what attack you have in mind.
That's the fallacy of DRM. There's no real way to keep data from a user.
This isn't just a problem with software engineers, but most engineering disciplines. It's impractical to transport logs hundreds of miles for processing, until we create a system that can do it efficiently. It's impractical to keep detailed records of billions of transactions, until we set up a database and reporting infrastructure that can handle that load.
This is your model for securing electric meters?
The first chapter of the whitepaper? [1] There's two sides entering a contractual agreement around energy consumption.
[1] Section 1.2 - https://efforce.io/WP_ENG_V1.pdf
You can use crypto to build communities around a shared incentive, this in itself is an extremely powerful feature which doesn't get anywhere near enough attention considering that every idea these days relies on shared incentives in order to succeed.
Don't think in binary. Think, whether this system provides better validation/certification than where auditors/inspectors come by at the end of the year to check records. Perhaps, it's harder to systematically cheat the system if you have to announce your data to the world daily, then if you wait till the 11th month, and cook your books so everything works out.
I doubt this removes the role of auditors/inspectors, but it might supplement them.
[0] https://www.theregister.com/2019/02/12/intel_sgx_hacked/?utm...
[1] https://blog.quarkslab.com/attacking-the-arms-trustzone.html
How exactly?
I agree with you that use of blockchain on its own is not fully secure, but that can be mitigated for the most part through the same sorts of proof-of-work and proof-of-stake mechanisms and entities that Etherium, etc. use. with adjustments.
This might be exactly the time for Woz and co. to get into this given that there are others handling those problems, right?
None of that does anything to prove that the energy consumption data you are submitting is true.
Nope. No amount of "proof of X" will help if you put false data on the blockchain in the first place. They will do a great job securing the false data though. Good luck with that.
This company is run by a bunch of random people. The very first thing I see is where to buy the token. There's a bunch of growth charts that have nothing to do with the platform itself (more people are expected to use energy in the future, just in case you didn't know). These type of blockchain pitches are way too familiar at this point.
Honestly without real standards/regulation blockchain is just going to be synonymous with fraud and failure. Bitcoin is its own thing, not just "blockchain". Companies are leveraging its success as if they're offering the same features (like immutability) or growth prospects just by offering "blockchain solutions".
Hopefully Steve can avoid the McAfee/Segal ending.
Woz's reputation is likely a factor in the traction this post (and perhaps business) is gaining, and I hope that it's a credible operation for his sake. He's taking an engineer and founder role, and there is a separate CTO (who has experience founding a Square-reader-like[3] company in Italy).
[1] - https://efforce.io/WP_ENG_V1.pdf#page=40
[2] - http://securities.stanford.edu/filings-case.html?id=101308
[3] - https://jusp.com/ (NB before you click: TLS certificate is expired at the time of writing, since 2020-02-13)
My sense is that potential investors would be wise to be aware of information like this, as part of various decision-making factors and research before they invest their own money (or other people's) in potentially risky projects.
I think it would have been much better launched in EU. I can totally see this is as a platform for energy efficiency accountability and energy efficiency investment tracking for tax break purposes.
My problem with it is that (1) the whitepaper is too thin on tech details and (2) it seems to have a fixed energy project model connected to those EFFORCE tokens preventing it from being used on a national level where a country has its own legally mandated reward scheme different from EFFORCE vision.
Which is the #1 sign of every crypto scam (or a less maliciously: of a poorly constructed crypto project).
A whitepaper at the very least should outline the incentive mechanisms of _all_ the actors (and their actions) in the system (and not just the miners like they do).
On top of that it has the very traditional real world->blockchain problem of needing to have verified data about the real world on the blockchain for the token to work. "The data that each smart meter will transmit will be validated and certified by the blockchain" sadly are just empty words, as the blockchain can neither validate nor certify anything about the real world on its own (and any "smart meter" can be tempered with). That's also only a single data point that's required for the token to work (if everything else holds up). They would also need prior energy consumption, which the implementing companies would be incentivized to downplay.
The concept is as full of holes as your run-of-the mill 2018 bubble crypto project.
But yeah all the data eventually has to come outside of the blockchain itself. This is always the weakness and shifts the trust issue to whoever is providing the data. Blockchain itself is no Magic bullet to resolve the fundamental issue of "trust"
Sorry, we can't discuss it.
The massive "NOT FOR UNITED STATES PERSONS" disclaimer isn't exactly encouraging either.
> You may not, nor are you authorised to, deliver or disclose the contents of this document to any other person.
Very clear that we can't discuss it.
> EFFORCE Limited, a Bahamas based company limited by shares, formed for the purpose of issuing EFFORCE tokens on behalf of its controlling entity EFFORCE Ltd, a Malta company
Nothing says "I am not a crook" like using two different corporate entities in notorious tax avoidance jurisdictions.
While Malta is in the Eurozone, I'm not sure you could launch something like this in a country with respectable financial regulators. Mind you, those are in short supply after Bafin/Wirecard...
My knowledge comes from having worked in the online gambling industry and knowing a lot of people who live in or have lived in Malta.
As a Swiss, I don't know whether I should be offended or relieved that our usual suspect, Zug, does not seem to be involved in this.
This has also led to a proliferation of local talent which looks passable in a suit, can open mailboxes, is versed in law and/or accounting, and does not steal excessive amounts of money.
The business model is basically "stuff that is not provably illegal yet". During the Cold War, Switzerland got away with a lot, but in recent years, many formerly lucrative areas of business started drying up thanks to stricter money laundering laws etc. So for an ecosystem that has evolved to accommodate financial engineering right at the edge of legality, cryptocurrency seemed almost a custom made niche.
This claim is false. The internet is littered with corpses of Malta-based gambling sites that exit scammed their playerbase. This doesn't occur in jurisdictions where the gambling regulations are "decent".
Edit: unless you mean "decent" from the perspective of unscrupulous gambling sites who are looking to scam people out of money.
I read a little bit and it seems critical. EFFORCE is dedicated to energy saving, but it mentions "mining" without any algorithm details. Assuming it is Proof-of-Work like Bitcoin (since it does "mining"), then why would they use the absolutely energy inefficient algorithm to save energy?
How an energy saving platform not mention any efforts to save energy in their tech itself?
Best cryptocurrency typo since hodl.
Knowing my country, that would lead to gaming the system.
> For the entire duration of the contract, the Beneficiary pays a part of the energy savings generated to the E.s.Co. This gives a return on the initial investment.
> The greater the energy savings obtained by the Beneficiary, the greater the returns for the Esco and the Contributors, since the savings generated are the actual financial performance of the initial investment.
So, contractors figure out how to make a company more energy efficient, and in return they get a cut of the savings they saved the company.
> the company can use EFFORCE to look for the necessary crowdfunding to proceed with the energy redevelopment projects, in exchange for sharing the savings generated.
"So, contractors figure out how to make a company more energy efficient, and in return they get a cut of the savings they saved the company."
Which is why it is a real world job. And companies contract such people to either want to save money on their own, or because they have to, because of some law.
"> the company can use EFFORCE to look for the necessary crowdfunding to proceed with the energy redevelopment projects, in exchange for sharing the savings generated. "
But this and the whole need of the blockchain, sounds so vague and overly complicated and the outcome either, that I doubt, you find enough gullible people, wanting to do the hassle of studying it with enough detail, to not oversee some nasty catch, costing you even more in the end, than you could ever save. Because Efforce ... wants to somehow make money, too.
In the building construction industry, there's a huge gap between an optimal energy performing construction and what finally gets built, due to the immense reluctance of clients to deal with the upfront cost or uncertainty associated with newer, high-performing constructions and technologies. It's somewhat mitigated in the commercial sector since commercial clients have incentive to "brand" their buildings as sustainable, but it's depressing as hell in the residential sector. Although it would definitely be harder (albeit, have way more impact) to use the EFFORCE model during new construction versus retrofits.
This is why human society invented regulations.
* Does Woz have trustworthy advisors for whether to get involved in things like this?
* What does the EFF think about the big, thick block letters "EFF" at the start of this company's logo? The company also spells their name in all-caps as "EFFORCE" in text of their site. ("EFFORCE" sounds more like a commando unit of the EFF, which is arguably a better idea than a blockchain ICO&mining scheme with the pretext of saving energy.)
To be honest, I really hate the new "big, thick block letters" EFF logo. The flat design trend destroyed the good original EFF logo and turned it into three featureless and boring letters. The fact that "EFFORCE" can create a logo that looks like the EFF using nothing but three capital letters is the proof of how featureless the logo is.
This is not the first time people have proposed this, someone even pitched this to our research group not long ago.
The basic idea of broadening the investment base for EPC is like any kind of crowdsourced investment to cut out the middleman of institutional investors (instead of giving my money to a bank to invest in EPC, I do it myself). With the same downside that individuals are usually much worse judges of projects than institutions, so what you gain in reduced costs you lose in high risk.
Then comes the blockchain bit, which suffers exactly the same problem of every project I've seen like this which is there is no technological way to tie the tokens to the energy use. Saving energy cannot 'generate' tokens, therefore you have to come up with a contract that ties the energy savings value to the value of the tokens. In which case there is basically no difference to just using cash since all the 'security' of the arrangement comes from contractual obligations, which are easier to create and more reliable to enforce using regular currency.
My issue with all of those ideas is that they are essentially trying (even if failing, for now) to devise ways for humans to trust fellow humans with less.
Contrast the experience of using the railway in South Korea (typically you never have to show your ticket) and China (where staff went through my luggage and confiscated shaving gel of all things): setting aside any legitimate justifications for either treatment, one makes you feel like a fugitive who should not be trusted most of the time while the other treats you like a responsible and honest adult—and we all know how labeling works.
Will it be impossible to address, in a post-scarcity society, the underlying issues that cause humans to lie to or hurt each other? Do we actually have to resort to dressing more and more of inter-human interaction into a straightjacket of never-forgetting blockchain?
He took questions after giving a short speech.
One person asked what he thinks about blockchain-based businesses.
Joe basically said "These days, in Silicon Valley, if anyone brings up a business idea that involves blockchain, that's how you know that team doesn't know what they're doing."
Basically, to paraphrase, people trying to throw blockchain into business concepts is like throwing like spaghetti against walls. Investors, according to Joe Lonsdale, do not typically find such ideas respectable-- in fact, the opposite: they seem to find them comical and gimmicky.
Who remembers how Imogen Heap's blockchain based "Creative Passport" would solve all the music industry's efficiency and fairness problems? Her mi.mu gloves are pretty cool though, but they don't need blockchain.
https://tidal.com/magazine/article/imogen-heap-and-the-block...
Imogen Heap: Mycelia's Creative Passport and reimagining the music industry
Multi award winning artist Imogen Heap shares how she's creating a fairer music industry with Mycelia's Creative Passport and demonstrates how to make music with her wearable tech mi.mu gloves.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_lR5ua54XY&ab_channel=Nesta...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imogen_Heap
>Heap developed the Mi.Mu Gloves, a line of musical gloves, as well as a blockchain-based music-sharing program, Mycelia. She also composed the music for the West End/Broadway play Harry Potter and the Cursed Child. Over the course of her career, she has received two Grammy Awards, one Ivor Novello Award, and one Drama Desk Award. In July 2019, Heap was awarded an honorary doctorate from Berklee College of Music.
Imogen Heap's Mycelia: An Artists' Approach for a Fair Trade Music Business, Inspired by Blockchain
https://www.forbes.com/sites/georgehoward/2015/07/17/imogen-...
>“It sounds a bit far fetched maybe right now, but I really believe it’s attainable,” Heap adds. “We just need musicians to put their foot forward and sign up for something that isn’t really there yet. There’s no ecosystem there, there’s no marketplace there. Will you put the flag in the ground showing that you’re here?”
Hmmm...
I'm sure there exist a few rusty metal sewage snakes in need of lubrication, but that's not what most people are selling snake oil for.
Not only does attaching to it act as a fairly reliable indicator of fraud or cluelessness, but it also means that you'll be constantly wasting your time deflecting suggestions to copy practices which are illegal, unethical, or just technically unsound from the majority of other 'blockchain' based ventures.
He brought up an example whereby some user could hide something very illegal within the encrypted data.
To be honest, I don't know enough about block chain or the blockchain economy, but the idea of hiding data/URLs related to very illicit content definitely makes me think it could be abused. Especially since decryption would be necessary to uncover the abusive usage (i.e. the concealing of illicit content/URLs to illicit content)
The less charming aspect is that I don't think he really had much skin in the game in any of his post-Apple efforts, and some people who went along with them probably could not afford their failure as easily as he could (although I've never heard first hand testimony to that effect).
And this particular company seems downright snake oil, with Wozniak serving as a figurehead. John McAfee with less sex, drugs, and harm to whales.
Makes me wonder how many top 1 world wide companies you have to have founded to be considered a successful entrepreneur.
EDIT: HN, where people argue whether Wozniak really qualifies as a successful entrepreneur or not :)
OK, I'll bite.
First of all nobody is denying that he/Apple was extremely successful. The argument is if entrepreneurship was his strong point, and I think most people would agree that it isn't. Nobody is denying that he was probably one of the greatest programmers of his generation and that is engineering genius was fundamental to kickstarting one of the most successful tech companies in the world.
You can absolutely found an extremely successful company without being a great entrepreneur if other things align, like having a co-founder who is a great entrepreneur and having a truly groundbreaking product.
Entrepreneurship is not being good at sales. It's not being a good leader. It's also not being a good coder and it's not being good at whatever metric you might feel is important. It's about founding an (eventually) profitable company.
(which is to say, there isn't actually a real disagreement here, except over how language is parsed)
He's a worse-than-average entrepreneur, and I'd wager that without the other Steve, the Apple I would have been one of the many promising microcomputers which fizzled out.
> In May 1983, Apple entered the Fortune 500 at #411 after only seven years of existence. It became the fastest growing company in history.
Both Jobs and Woz left in '85.
Just off the top of my head:
Disney Bloomberg Automattic Air Jordan Craigslist Baskin-Robbins Andreesen-Horowitz Kleiner Perkins Wilson Sonsini Goodrich and Rosati Fenwick & West
In this list, I see really only 1 - Disney. Air Jordan isn't a company, it's a brand from another company - Nike.
The others may have been named after their founders, but the companies are not about their founders and weren't started/successful because of the relationship with the founder.
edit: checked out the whitepaper, its not even about the blockchain saving any energy itself. instead you save energy somewhere and record it on blockchain... for ... ?
Because the new system is completely unusable there was absolutely no legitimate purpose to start this lockup at this time as a public system rather than just some fake-money test network.
Once (if?) it becomes usable it will have the additional ultimate property of further enriching the beneficiaries of Ethereum's 72 million coin pre-mine, since those super large positions are effectively illiquid (can't sell more than a small share without crashing the price), its low risk for those parties to place large amounts in lockup.
The concept of "proof of stake" has fundamental soundness problems which have not been addressed except by obscuring it with deceptive obfuscation and protecting it against peer review through sheer complexity. https://download.wpsoftware.net/bitcoin/pos.pdf
Its not hard to understand: "if X has green and non-green options, and you choose non-green, that doesn't mean you can claim X is non-green."
https://www.cryptoisnotcryptocurrency.com/
Solana is clearly BFT, unlike what Emin claims.
To be fair, I don't expect Solana to be as centralised as other chains only for the reason that you need a gaming rig to run a consensus node. Solana is not centralised for the reasons you mention.
At my last job, we tried to make an initial implementation of this, but the specification was extremely complex, and even worse, ambiguous in many places. We were frequently unable as a group to agree on what the specification meant. Maybe it has improved in the two years since I left.
[1] https://www.usef.energy
Woz is huge in hacker circles, a legend in his day. But as you say, the last decades have been pretty unremarkable.
In fact, considering that we are stilling waiting for the first tangible contribution to society out of the blockchain field that matches its surrounding hype, I would argue that doing things differently is probably a good idea.
I love the idea of having markets for more things (ex. in Ontario we have cap and trade for carbon emissions), but the blockchain idea makes no sense.
But if we’re going to play this game, if everyone walking into the bathroom came out with a renewed sense of self esteem, a nose bleed and a sudden urge to dance, yes, I think you would be looked at sideways for closing the door. What’s lacking from your rhetorical question is context.
I'm not even talking about Monero or the particularities of its current dominant usage as I think this is irrelevant for the above point.
Instead you dumped your life savings into something that’s demonstrably wrecked you a few times, at one point leaving you with 20% (?!) of what you started with? If you don’t care about what’s in there, as you mustn’t to be ok with that, why do you care about putting it into a bank account? Because of the Cypriot banking crisis of 2012? On a tiny island in the Mediterranean split between 3 countries (the Greeks, the Turks and a pair of British overseas territories serving as military bases from when the whole island was under their administration) known for its shaky financial system? 4% of the land mass of Cyprus is a UN buffer zone between the various belligerents!
I mean you know how that reads right? It sounds a bit like the anti-vaxxers of finance.
If you see the amount of debt being created and not payed back, it’s just a system designed for risk takers. I was buying phyisical gold as well, but over time switched to Bitcoin + having an own apartment in case I lose it all.
For me just the legal definition of being a creditor to the bank when I wanted to own my money didn’t feel right.
> Also are you sure? 90 years ago US was on the gold standard. Are you sure you can still get the gold that was promised 90 years ago?
If I wanted gold I’d buy it. My comment was about bank failures — dollars - not their redemption capabilities. It is true fact. What you’re describing is a default, external to the banking system that did happen and would not affect you if you used money like you’re supposed to, as a temporary store of value to buy assets with.
> If you see the amount of debt being created and not payed back, it’s just a system designed for risk takers.
None of this matters at all if you buy assets with it like I said. Which is what you were doing. The system works.
Executive Order 6102 is an executive order signed on April 5, 1933, by US President Franklin D. Roosevelt "forbidding the hoarding of gold coin, gold bullion, and gold certificates within the continental United States." The executive order was made under the authority of the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, as amended by the Emergency Banking Act in March 1933.
"The main rationale behind the order was actually to remove the constraint on the Federal Reserve preventing it from increasing the money supply during the depression. The Federal Reserve Act (1913) required 40% gold backing of Federal Reserve Notes that were issued. By the late 1920s, the Federal Reserve had almost hit the limit of allowable credit, in the form of Federal Reserve demand notes, which could be backed by the gold in its possession"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_6102
One is a bank defaulting on its obligations to provide you a certain number of units of currency regardless of their market value. This has not happened since the FDIC was created in the wake of the Great Depression.
Another is a sovereign default where the country decides not to honour its obligations to those holding units of its currency or its debts. This has happened ~6 times in the history of the United States, and I do include the cancellation of the gold withdrawal rights as a sovereign default. This has nothing to do with the FDIC or your bank.
I can't stress this enough, neither of these things matter to you if you do what you're supposed to with money, which is not keep your life savings in a mattress or a savings account, but use it as a temporary store of value, medium of exchange and unit of account and buy things with it. Gold, real estate, magic beans, I don't care. This is practically ECON-101.
On the subject of freedom, backing all currency with gold eliminates my right to choose what I back my personal economy with. A gold backed currency has strictly less freedom than a fiat currency. I can today choose to back my personal economy with gold, silver, platinum, magic beans (crypto) or Apple stock by leveraging a brokerage account and a credit card. If you believe in freedom, it's actually what you want.
They can, though. All it takes is a majority of the miners deciding to do so. For example: https://blog.ethereum.org/2016/07/20/hard-fork-completed/
The DAO hard fork happened because most people with economic power who run nodes in Ethereum accept Vitaly's decision. With Bitcoin there's a concensus at this point that only bug fix hard forks are accepted.
There was a consensus that Cyprus bank accounts were solvent, until they weren't.
> The DAO hard fork happened because most people with economic power who run nodes in Ethereum accept Vitaly's decision.
Yes. The point is that can happen to Bitcoin, too.
Is it unlikely? Perhaps. It's also unlikely you'll have your bank account take a haircut via government action like Cyprus took.
What's more, you've shown that you know enough about cryptocurrencies that you know this.
You are arguing in bad faith.
I disagree.
I'm ultimately arguing that this:
> I understood it that if I keep the private key secure, nobody can take it away from me.
Is demonstrably false, both from a practical and a technological standpoint.
I've more faith in developed-world governments than I do in Bitcoin's miners.
Which you won't do, because you can't.
The jury's still out on the "legal" part of that particular business (spoiler: probably not).
I’m not sure it strengthens arguments for blockchain etc but on a tight economic value add it’s true.
In this case, CryptoKitties purchases represent money that was diverted from intrinsically valuable goods and services: cars, fruit, haircuts, shoes, software, and so on.
Every dollar spent on CryptoKitties was a dollar that didn't go to a farmer, a plumber, or a musician. That's not creating economic value; it's destroying it.
It's a pyramid scheme, plain and simple.
I think it has. Worldwide ecommerce runs on cryptography. there are laws and regulations on how crypto should be made secure and managed in ecommerce.
if you mean blockchain cryptocurrency by the word crypto then you may be correct. but in general terms crypto has a lot of actual legal value for it.
Also it's a legit question rather than a statement. I haven't ever seen what blockchain is truly good for, but perhaps I've missed something.
Disclaimer: ex co-founder, left the company at the end of 2018, still in good terms with them.
[0]: http://fabrica.land/
I am a bit disappointed that it is not.
Actually after doing more reading, I'm not really sure what this is. Landing pages with almost no tangible information are the worst kind.
With grid-energy blockchains there is a tangible good. But decreased power consumption by one metric doesn't assure power is not used off platform. (not to mention the green-ness of any such generation)
Not sure I fully understand this one, perhaps I missed it in the white paper. The more traditional method of this is the investors fund the project and then the benefitting company pays the investors a portion of what they would have been paying the utility companies if it hadn't been for the upgrad project. It's not clear to me if that actually takes place in the Efforce method, does the benefitting company have to buy tokens to pay the investors?
Also, if all savings are calculated based on meter readings sent "directly" to the chain, how do you account for changes in energy requirements due to upsizing or downsizing or any other change not covered by the contract? A mechanism for this would seem to require a method of putting a thumb on the scale, and if that's he case then why use the token instead of the more traditional method.
https://docs.ethhub.io/ethereum-roadmap/ethereum-2.0/proof-o...
I mean, it totally sounds advanced and futureproof.
I'm not saying that Proof of Work algorithms have no value at all, but I believe they have very little value to humanity compared to most other uses for that energy, and increase the costs of energy in many cases for most other applications.
Currently Proof of Work spends energy to create a betting market for rich people. Maybe in the future there might be useful application of it, but we've yet to get any further than theorising and small scale demonstrations.
Anyway, I would agree that if the PoW had a secondary purpose, like enhancing the efficiency of the blockchain, or providing scientific compututation, it would provide more value to humanity.
Navigation didn't work for some stuff on mogile but I dowloaded the PDF whitepaper and I must say this is more shallow than most "tokens".
If I understand correctly, people invest money into a pool that is distributed for companies/industries to spend, in order to increase their energy efficiency. Once they are done ("once" should be "if"), part of their savings goes to the investors. I think it is reasonable to assume that such process doesn't need any crypto proof and ultimately depends on lawyers, salesmen and bankers. Making a company or an industry more efficient requires talent and strategy, not just pouring money and it is a very risky and long process. If these guys feel competent to make a profitable energy efficiency fund, they should start one. And with clear legal protection for the investors, not a token.
This is true of basically every single cryptocurrency project.
The main problem the cryptocurrency tends to solve is that the lawyers, salesmen and bankers have an annoying tendency to insist you follow the law and don't steal everything.
Edit: Good example, estate transfers and mortgages are a potentially quite good use-case for blockchain. Why is nobody using it? Because it's Fucking Magic.. nobody with a sensible risk profile is going to replace a "contracts and lawyers" process that works well-enough with Fucking Magic.
The fact that it's a blockchain likely makes it attractive to some people, so maybe it was chosen for marketing/hype reasons. Would it have landed at the hn front page had it been a traditional investment company? Likely not.
A while back I read Matt Taibbi's book The Divide. Chapter 8 was about collection on delinquent credit card debt, and it was horrifying. According to Taibbi, "the bulk of the credit card collection business is conducted without any supporting documentation showing up or being seen by human eyes at any part of the process....in the overwhelmed modern court system, simply attesting to having the right documentation works just as well as really having it."
According to one judge, "On a regular basis this court encounters defendants being sued on the same debt by more than one creditor alleging it is the assignee of the original credit card obligation." It's also common for lenders to claim delinquency despite the loan actually being paid.
In theory, defendants can challenge all this but even if they could afford lawyers, they often don't even know they're getting sued. When they don't show up there's a default judgement against them and their wages get garnished.
If we had a really scalable blockchain to run all this, including the loan payments and loan sales, then courts could automatically check this stuff. We have the tech now to maintain sufficient privacy for borrowers.
Of course we wouldn't need a blockchain if courts were doing their job, but a pure software solution is likely cheaper than spending a lot more tax money to examine paper documents.
What do you mean by that? Do you not get a mail that you should show up in court? Or do you have to read the newspaper public announcements?
I'm reminded of Matt Levine's comments on crypto:
> The blockchain-y reinvention of everything in the financial world -- money, contracts, companies -- is fascinating and impressive and, viewed from a certain angle, adorable. But sometimes it could stand to learn from what has gone before. After all, the elements of finance -- money, contracts, companies -- have already been invented. Perhaps their historical development might hold some lessons for their re-inventors.
A price already exists on energy and companies have an incentive to reduce their energy consumption if only to save money. Maybe you don't agree with the price, or maybe you don't agree with the cost of financing, but those two levers you can more directly control and certainly don't require blockchain
[0] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2016-05-17/blockc...
"In the last ten years energy consumption increased exponentially world wide."
It sure doesn't look exponential: https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/primary-energy-consumptio...
And if you break it down by energy use per person a really interesting trend emerges:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/per-capita-energy-use?tab...
For much of the western world energy use per person has flat-lined or started decreasing. This appears to be a fairly robust effect, you can see that Taiwan had very consistent growth until ~2007 at which point their trend closely matches USA/France/Germany.
The tremendous growth in energy consumption is mostly developing nations, mostly Asia, starting to live closer to how developed nations live.
If it is, they're getting good.
Otherwise, I don't see how they'll offset the carbon cost of the coin itself; which is a paradox I don't think they can overcome if I'm understanding this correctly.
Seemingly novel ideas like binding medical or scientific research with cryptocoins means extending trust. Which means that the cryptocoin is just along for the ride and to hype the investment. It's not decentralized and trustless.
With very rare exceptions: primecoin was designed to help uncover specific chains of primes.
No pun intended: an energy saving platform based on an energy inefficient blockchain. I should expect them to choose another blockchain or wait for Eth2.
Don't do it. There is amazing tech out there. I hate to see this
If so that seems pretty counter productive as far as the environmental goals go.
As for the rest, how does actually measuring energy saved tie into the chain? Who verifies this?
I guess it's international irony day?
Is this still a viable startup strategy?
Stan Lee was involved with a company called Stan Lee Media back around 2000 or so. Turns out his business partner was attempting to use it as a pump and dump scheme, and fucked off to Brazil when he heard the Feds were sniffing. But it gets stranger! When Stan Lee himself reacquired control of the content he created for SLM through a new company called Pow! Entertainment after SLM went bankrupt, his former business partner tried to sue him, from federal prison using intermediaries, to reacquire control of all of Stan Lee's creations, including Marvel properties like Spider-Man! The ensuing legal battle would dog Lee for the rest of his life -- kinda like how SCO v. IBM is unresolved to this day, there's still a little stub of a company trying to assert copyright over Linux.
I think Wozniak, like Lee, may have innocently gotten involved with some shady characters. Hey, it's California, it's the tech industry, these things happen.
That's a very strange phrasing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command_and_control_regulati...
Restricted Persons. The sale of EFFORCE tokens is not directed at, and each purchaser of EFFORCE tokens will be required to represent, among other things, that they are not: (a) a citizen, resident (tax or otherwise) of, a person located or domiciled in, or any entity organized in or owned by certain persons in (i) the United States (including any U.S. Person pursuant to the U.S. Securities Act of 1933 (as amended)), . . . In addition, each purchaser of EFFORCE tokens will be required to represent that such purchaser is outside of the United States at the time of agreeing to purchase the tokens, was outside of the United States at the time any offers to sell or any offers to buy the token were reviewed, and will be outside of the United States at any time that such purchaser performs its obligations under the Token Purchase Agreement. Purchaser Sophistication. EFFORCE tokens are speculative and involve a high degree of risk and uncertainty . . .
In other words, it's apparent they are not wasting their time or money registering with the SEC. Expect the SEC to respond with something to the effect that "regardless of all your terms and conditions if ANY US based person buys your Efforce token you are now subject to our rules and we will litigate" . . . same result as if anyone offshore sells anything unsuspectingly/unknowingly to a US citizen the US authorities immediately claim jurisdiction and ability to litigate/arrest/prosecute.
. . . and the private placement listed at 45% - - these are the investors/creators taking their very sizeable cut of the deal, not a particularly altruistic percentage.
Appears a bunch of Italians went seeking a world famous personality to be the frontman "image" for their token deal . . . . and booked the Woz. Wonder what his cut of the deal is ?
lol