Hacker News Reader

Comment by vthallam | Hacker News Reader

David Marcus moved out messenger [0] recently to focus on blockchain related products. I am sure they must be preparing for the future where a decentralized social network getting traction.

But anything decentralized is diagonally opposite to what FB is, not sure how they will pull it off.

[0] - https://www.recode.net/2018/5/8/17329696/facebook-blockchain...

View on HN

It’s called “embrace and extend” — part of the original Microsoft playbook. When you face an existential threat, give it the wettest lip service possible while slowly diluting it into your proprietary platform.

> anything decentralized is diagonally opposite to what FB is, not sure how they will pull it off

Exactly - when you have the might and connectivity of Facebook, and everything you could want to do with a blockchain you could do much more easily with a centralized SaaS-based currency like steam credits or MMO gold, why would you strap yourself to a difficult to administer and control public blockchain architecture?

Blockchain is a thing that makes sense when you have no central authority for tracking state. There’s zero overlap between that and Facebook.

I agree with the comment on zero overlap currently. However, I look at it more like google and android. Perhaps fb feels that it is better to have some voice in the crypto/blockchain ecosystem than none.

Shouldn't it be 'A blockchain' or 'blockchains' since we're speaking about one of many things?

Or has the name become like software, code and water?

It depends on what use of the word blockchain we are discussing. Blockchain is the name of an algorithm (or more accurately a class of algorithms) in addition to being the name of instances of using that class of algorithm. See for example the word “average.”

The use of the word "Blockchain" without the article is useful in identifying those who understand decentralized ledgers and those who are following the crowd. Essentially it's the buzzword version of the real deal, which is kind of nice as it lets you concentrate on reading the writings of people who have some idea what they're talking about.

Your comment is super interesting to me. I’ve historically been in the camp of “what’s important is the concept” (aka blockchain) rather than the instancing (aka a blockchain), but taste testing your comment with my roughly coincident comment on parallels with a word like “average” or “sum,” I see how if talking with someone I knew to be a mathematician or physicist I’d be very comfortable hearing them drop the article but with someone who didn’t seem to grok any real math if they dropped the article I’d likely conclude they had no idea what they were actually talking about. I think you’ve convinced me that going that tiny bit of extra distance and including the article before the word is in fact a potentially valuable in-group signaling mechanism for communicating that you are in fact a person who commonly talks with others knowledgeable about blockchains (genuine question: did I do the signalling right in your reading there by using a plural in that sentence? I’m realizing I’ve so favored dropping the article and treating blockchain as a collective noun that I’ve not trained my ear correctly on this and need to start trying to do so).

You got it "right" in terms of what my snobbery likes! ;) Obviously the style of writin is not actually a direct proxy for skill and understanding, but I do believe it relates to experience. Dropping the article is so new that I think most people who've spent the better part of the last decade working on cryptocurrencies would have to make a conscious effort to adopt that style of writing.

Could you, by the way, provide an example of how, in maths, you'd use e.g. "average" without an article in a sentence? I'm having difficulty coming up with an equivalence to this issue, but then I'm no mathematician at all.

Edit: also, sorry about the snub. I got confused and thought we were talking about how the article used the word. I wouldn't have been quite so abrasive if I'd realized I was also commenting on you, personally. I do tend towards snarkiness but usually try to avoid making it personal.

The simplest usage of average without an article would be “let’s average FB’s data” (where average is a used as a verb). That’s completely acceptable to say in normal usage but maps to “let’s blockchain FB’s data” which you’d presumably hate. We could also say “I used an average”/“I used a blockchain” (average being a gerund/noun form of a verb as in “I went for a run”) or we could say “I computed the average”/“I forked the blockchain” (akin to “on my run”, where we are referring to a specific instance or result of the verb to average or to run).

> But anything decentralized is diagonally opposite to what FB is, not sure how they will pull it off.

Is it though? The fact they are centralized now doesn't mean they can "only" work in a centralized manner. They are in the ad business, and as long as they can keep doing that would it really matter who hosts what?

Keep in mind the data requirements for a social network the size of Facebook are huge, perhaps too bing for a blockchain. I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be a project tangential to their main product.

Facebook understands that it's the network effect that gives them their monopoly, not the centralization. Their users cant just take their coins and go play elsewhere because their friends are not there. They already offer their platform that gives you access to all their friend network , yet nobody managed to steal facebook's users.

A currency would make sense for facebook and their messenger (KIK messenger is experimenting with blockchain too, and now Telegram as well) , but it could also lead to more serious applications, for example verified digital ID or signing documents. At some point they may retire the facebook platform and move its functionality into the blockchain (that way they can't be accused when other companies stealing user's data). They might also use it as a way to reward users for videos / posts.

They ll probably have to acquire an existing blockchain company for that . I guess they need a blockchain with high transaction speed, like stellar or nano

There is a lot of potential here and Facebook is not averse to taking risks. Bringing blockchain to the masses will definitely help improve its image among developers / techies.

They do that to help their stock after mass selloff regarding Cambridge scandal. And its working charms as their stock is back where it was before it well off the cliff.

Kodak mentioned "blockchain" in news and same thing happened. Don't hope for un-centralized Facebook anytime soon :)

David Marcus's move felt to me (on the back of no evidence at all) more like a play for FB to launch an identity service.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com