

Predicteria 2015 - bcantrill
https://www.joyent.com/blog/predicteria-2015

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

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

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

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

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

[2]
[http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/15188/T...](http://dspace.utlib.ee/dspace/bitstream/handle/10062/15188/Truu_Ahto.pdf?sequence=1)

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

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

------
c3RlcGhlbnI_
It is very amusing to see him predict that internet of things will "broaden"
while wearables will "fizzle". He even links to an example of how silly an
idea this is: [http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/intel-smart-baby-
onesie/](http://www.engadget.com/2014/01/07/intel-smart-baby-onesie/)

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

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

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

[1] [http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-
ma...](http://www.fastcompany.com/3031272/can-jeff-immelt-really-make-the-
world-1-better#2)

~~~
c3RlcGhlbnI_
I did not argue that the IoT won't expand dramatically, or even that it is not
the more important of the two technologies. However my point is that wearable
computing can't possibly divorce itself from from the IoT. Any wearable object
with the ability to collect and upload data falls into both categories. By
that token, if wearable computing is not going to break away as its own thing,
it will just become a small part of the internet of things.

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

------
amalag
Ripple is going gangbusters. I think it will be bigger in 2015:
[https://ripple.com/news/](https://ripple.com/news/)

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

~~~
amalag
The sentence is pretty clear:

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

Not sure what you are construing.

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

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

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

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

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

