> I guess that's why we're sitting in different camps.
Indeed, doesn't mean I don't want to hear the other side's point of view though!
Open source is not going to save them. They have one main problem - how to tell if people did the work they claim they did? If centralised, they can "test" new users or perhaps periodically check up on long term users by secretly allocating duplicate work and verifying its content. How can you do that in public? The blockchain is actually working against them.
And who really needs a cryptographically secure attestation that on march 25th 2018, user XYZ completed ML shared 456.7? This is a level of audit logging appropriate for a bank and basically nothing else. All you need is availability accounting of some sort. It's not rocket science. I couldn't write the client for this app but I sure as hell could write the back end and I wouldn't even think of using a blockchain. Make no mistake, their choice of technologies is for buzzword compliance, not technical necessity - a very bad sign.
There is also no need for the GNT. It solves no problem and users could just as easily be compensated in ETH or anything else. Sure, it's a funding mechanism, fine. We still haven't figured out how ICOs should even work.
Despite all the rigmarole, they have a product they need to sell like any other startup: rent us your GPU/CPU for $x/hr. Because of their overhead, I predict they will easily be outcompeted by centralised providers. People are not going to use golem over another, better-paying alternative just from the goodness of their hearts. And I cannot see any way how golem can be structurally more efficient than a centralised solution.
All said, I'm not as optimistic as you. Not like I want them to fail though, good luck to them!
Well I sure do appreciate you going out of your way to explain your perspective to me.
Just a couple more responses:
1. The use of blockchain is not for buzzword compliance. Julian (CEO) is a longtime Ethereum supporter/developer. This project has really been in development since 2014 or so, long before blockchain was "buzzy." So the use of blockchain here is not for grabbing cash. They actually think it's a better (perhaps harder) way forward.
2. Not only does the token allow investors to directly invest in the project, it also allows developers to "print" tokens that can be locked behind smart contracts. That way developers can be rewarded for reaching project goals with bowls of their own dog food. Not bad to eat when it's pretty much "real" money.
3. The decentralized and distributed nature of the project will allow the Golem Network to achieve goals and execute code that no centralized competitor could achieve/run. I'll leave it as a thought exercise for you to speculate what those goals/codes might look like.
Thanks for the engagement. It's great to test my beliefs through debate. Time will be the true arbitrator here though. Best wishes.
Indeed, doesn't mean I don't want to hear the other side's point of view though!
Open source is not going to save them. They have one main problem - how to tell if people did the work they claim they did? If centralised, they can "test" new users or perhaps periodically check up on long term users by secretly allocating duplicate work and verifying its content. How can you do that in public? The blockchain is actually working against them.
And who really needs a cryptographically secure attestation that on march 25th 2018, user XYZ completed ML shared 456.7? This is a level of audit logging appropriate for a bank and basically nothing else. All you need is availability accounting of some sort. It's not rocket science. I couldn't write the client for this app but I sure as hell could write the back end and I wouldn't even think of using a blockchain. Make no mistake, their choice of technologies is for buzzword compliance, not technical necessity - a very bad sign.
There is also no need for the GNT. It solves no problem and users could just as easily be compensated in ETH or anything else. Sure, it's a funding mechanism, fine. We still haven't figured out how ICOs should even work.
Despite all the rigmarole, they have a product they need to sell like any other startup: rent us your GPU/CPU for $x/hr. Because of their overhead, I predict they will easily be outcompeted by centralised providers. People are not going to use golem over another, better-paying alternative just from the goodness of their hearts. And I cannot see any way how golem can be structurally more efficient than a centralised solution.
All said, I'm not as optimistic as you. Not like I want them to fail though, good luck to them!