pull down to refresh
141 sats \ 0 replies \ @0260378aef 26 Jun 2022
My hot takes on all this:
- We were always able to get a small group of nerd enthusiasts interested in using bitcoin as a payment system, but that never scaled to more than a tiny group. "Normies" were never going to jump on board with that (and that actually includes a lot of loudly self-professed 'bitcoiners' who could never be bothered to actually use the thing).
- But ... Bitcoin was never a payment network, it was always a monetary network. The 2012-2014 excitement about getting bars to accept it was never the point. So ...
- Lightning network is the closest thing we have today to what could be a well designed payment network on top of Bitcoin. It's not 100% there yet and there are some deep structural issues related to security (DOS) and privacy (receiver) but it's at least conceivable we'll fix them, and today Lightning works very well (I use it a lot for online and even in person payments). OpenBazaar was way too early for that, but I think they maybe were in the set of people who grossly underestimated how promising it was in the 2017-18 era. The thing is, even if they had gone balls to the wall on LN they were way too early to take advantage; it was realistically 3+ years before mobile software had gotten good enough and reliable enough to use it. Even now, we are not quite at the userbase level for a big p2p trading market to develop, though it's a lot more realistic nowadays.
But aside from all that debate, trade of physical goods is a really tough market it seems like. That's why Bitrefill (and I guess paxful, though I haven't tried that) had the right idea: gift cards and phone refills are very uniquely genuinely valuable pure digital tradeable goods. The whole shipping thing is so problematic without huge economies of scale, forcing locality in something that intrinsically wants to be international, plus the trust issue of waiting for long periods.
reply
121 sats \ 3 replies \ @taxd 25 Jun 2022
The UI was horrible, but easily fixable.
Instead they spent all the efforts of Chris Pacia to include a lot of shitcoins, since "it cannot hurt to have payment alternatives."
Well, it surely can if it takes away all the development resources.
reply
181 sats \ 1 reply \ @BrianHoffman 25 Jun 2022 freebie
Chris was an extremely strong proponent of Bitcoin Cash and was a large reason we went past Bitcoin and supported it. We also decided to support some additional UTXO based currencies like LTC and Zcash. Eventually we wanted to also support ETH and ERC-20s. We wanted to capture as many potential users as possible. We didn’t discriminate against other coins. Chris wouldn’t have been working on Lightning or anything related because he was not a real supporter of it. It was also just not compatible with us to start building on. We would have had to build something similar to LNURL or Lightning Addresses and really gone all in on Bitcoin only and the team we had would not have gone for that either.
Lots of mistakes all around regardless.
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @taxd 25 Jun 2022
OK. Too bad. I liked the idea a lot and even bought some nice art on OpenBazaar. Then the problems with this spammer selling comic series which could not be blocked, having to deal with Tor manually and so on came.
Hopefully something similar comes back. I think DeSnake of AlphaBay fame thinks along these lines.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @0222569377 26 Jun 2022 freebie
I never bought anything from openbazaar because there was nothing that I want on there.
201 sats \ 0 replies \ @thrown 26 Jun 2022
Lightning Escrow is what OpenBazaar should have been. An escrow (and an index) is the main value prop of any online market.
reply
62 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 25 Jun 2022
Here are his main post-mortem bits:
- People hate downloading desktop apps and creating great cross platform experiences is hard
- Price volatility made people hesitant to accept Bitcoin as payment?
- Everything can't be free
- Talk to your users
reply
120 sats \ 6 replies \ @notgeld 25 Jun 2022
Simple Auctions and plebeian.market exist although aren't funded by vc's.
May be VC money is the actual rats poison?
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @ibz 26 Jun 2022
Top-down financing is antithetical to organic growth, which is the essence of life. Nobody got rich winning the lottery.
Money is certainly not a bad thing, but you have to also earn your place in the world before you ask for more.
Plebeian Market is much simpler in what it does compared to OpenBazaar, but we think that in the long run it'll get much further, exactly because we are hungry and foolish.
The fact that Brian Hoffman, after failing that, went on to build auctions on centralized blockchains is quite telling: he understands "decentralization" without understanding Decentralization. Decentralization starts with the plebs, from the roots.
reply
121 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b OP 25 Jun 2022
I prefer to think of it as fuel for a fire. If you have an un-contained fire and add a bunch of fuel, you are fucked.
reply
31 sats \ 0 replies \ @Brunswick 25 Jun 2022
VC money for a nonprofit open-source commerce-facilitation project makes no sense to me. Where there is no revenue model, and all the organization's infrastructure can simply be forked and federated, a business formed to serve an ideology will not benefit from the positive feedback of market incentives. At least SN follows the Craigslist/television/newspaper/twitter/fb model of success, give-away the network-effect component, and sell marketing to companies wanting to piggyback on the service (jobs/ads).
In this case the VC only prolongs the pain for the "guy with an idea" and misallocates social and human capital to people with technical know-how but no understanding of the other business activities required to bring a product to market. OB1 may have had a relatively successful technical development effort, but the necessary activities for precursors to product development and supporting activities of market research, market feedback, market realignment appear to have been short-circuited by angel-money and groupthink.
reply
10 sats \ 1 reply \ @notgeld 25 Jun 2022
I see an abundance of VC money as direct result of credit expansion. So the result is quite similar.
reply
21 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b OP 25 Jun 2022
VC funds are definitely Cantillon beneficiaries, but I don't think venture funding is necessarily bad.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @DeezSats 30 Aug 2022
Yes, they are rat poison.
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @cryptocoin 30 Aug 2022
Further discussion on OpenBazaar here:
Why did OpenBazaar Fail?
#64012
reply
0 sats \ 0 replies \ @ideasourcing 26 Jun 2022
i miss bitmit
reply
0 sats \ 4 replies \ @Jorj_X_McKie 25 Jun 2022
Didn’t they run with Bcash at some point?
reply
100 sats \ 3 replies \ @ember 25 Jun 2022
Yes, Brian fucked up and was on the wrong side of the fork wars. They went full bcashtard.
reply
131 sats \ 2 replies \ @BrianHoffman 25 Jun 2022 freebie
bcash was never the problem. the reality is that no one was ready to spend Bitcoin on arbitrary good at the level of fees we saw. The software was fairly rough to use in spite of our efforts and more importantly really no good business model to sustain ourselves. The fork wars had no real bearing other than to cause a lot of maximalists to hate on us for supporting other payment options.
reply
21 sats \ 1 reply \ @ember 25 Jun 2022
Hey Brian welcome to SN.
I can appreciate you had a nuanced situation with your team + investors + product market fit.
But let's not be naive...
Supporting bcash was aligning OB with a concerted attack on Bitcoin and the sovereignty of its users, many of whom were OB early adopters. Any built up loyalty + reputation you had from users like myself was lost.
reply
121 sats \ 0 replies \ @BrianHoffman 26 Jun 2022 freebie
Bitcoin wasn’t created to make bitcoiners happy. It was for freedom of money. We weren’t as concerned about making Bitcoiners happy as making free trade a real thing.
reply