thesmallprint said:
I don't know how many correspondents on this thread have read the full article from the NYT. Its focus is much more on the potential of blockchain technology than on cryptocurrency. As to the commercial imperative - what would readers/authors get from using such an app - if I'm understanding it correctly, everyone who signs up becomes a shareholder at some level in the technology and the rewards need not be currency based.
Again, if my understanding is correct, Amazon could not simply buy blockchain technology; there is no entity to buy from. It is open source. If Amazon removed a middleman in the publisher, why can't technology develop further to also remove the middleman that is the shopwindow & payment processor? In effect, that's all that Amazon is. It connects buyers with sellers in the same way Uber connects drivers with passengers.
Surely the ultimate achievement of ever-developing technology in this sphere would be to remove as many tiers as possible between buyer and seller.
I did read the entire article.
We understood it in different ways. I don't think that "everyone who signs up becomes a shareholder at some level in the technology and the rewards need not be currency based." I thought that if you participated in blockchain cryptocurrency at a certain level, you'd become a miner [for the creation of new units of cryptocurrency], not a "shareholder" in the technology. Look at it this way -- all of us who use computers are using Windows or Apple technology, but that doesn't make us shareholders in the companies. Alternatively, we can use Linux, an open source technology, but we don't become shareholders in Linux either. Going beyond crytocurrency -- as you pointed out, blockchain technology is open source, so there would not be one company with proprietary rights and the ability to sell shares in a venture. What companies such as Kodak are trying to own and sell are their proprietary cryptocurrencies, not the blockchain technology itself.
What "rewards" that are not currency-based would participants receive in return for using blockchain technology, other than the opportunity to become a miner? You may be thinking of blockchain users as stakeholders rather than shareholders. Definition from the Business Directory.com: "Stakeholders can affect or be affected by the organization's actions, objectives and policies. Some examples of key stakeholders are creditors, directors, employees, government (and its agencies), owners (shareholders), suppliers, unions, and the community from which the business draws its resources." Wide adoption of blockchain technology would certainly affect all of those stakeholders, and could affect them in ways that were beneficial, i.e. rewards.
About payments: I'm not aware of a pressing need for new payment options at his time. (Granted, I am saying that from the viewpoint of the consumer.) Current payment processing technology for online purchases is not so cumbersome that a critical mass of customers are seeking alternative payment methods such as cryptocurrency. Existing payment procedures are not perfect, but they're still pretty efficient. PayPal does have some layers -- your bank account and your credit card backup -- but you don't have to use PayPal if you don't like it. You can use a credit card at almost any online store, and a debit card at many stores. Amazon has a payment option that does not require any kind of card. You can set up a direct debit to your bank account for Amazon purchases.
The only advantages I can see for merchants using blockchain payment technology would be elimination of the fees they have to pay to credit card companies and PayPal. However, I doubt that a blockchain payment system would be entirely cost-free. For consumers, using blockchain payment would enable them to avoid interaction with banks and credit card companies, if that's their goal. They may wish to be anonymous buyers. Or they may be un-banked. But there are ways to order products without a bank account or credit card. Some online retailers will accept money order payment by mail, or customers can use things like Green Dot cards. You can also use the old way: wire a cash payment through Western Union. There's a fee, but the transaction is simple and fast.
Many of us like to say, "Cut out the middleman!" but sometimes you need them. Middlemen can be valuable to the customer, such as in dispute resolution. Credit card companies can help the consumer resolve purchasing or product quality problems; American Express is known for their great service in this area. Amazon and PayPal have good dispute resolution procedures too. If blockchain eliminated all middlemen, it might also leave the consumer stranded and alone to resolve any disputes. Middlemen are also valuable to the supplier, in terms of outsourcing distribution.
Anyway, I think this is a good discussion, and I'm glad you introduced the topic, thesmallprint.