|
Quoted:
I see a future where will be able to login to our bank and transfer money anywhere in the world with the click of a button. I see payment processors that will let me buy shit from online auctions instantaneously. Of course no icky gun stuff. Sit down for this one, I see a day where I will be able to whip out my phone and pay right then and there. Yes sir, digital currency is coming.  Quoted:
Quoted:
All I can say is that mater is I think Warren Buffett has forgotten more about making huge money over his years, then I ever learned at several of the best business schools in the nation... Yes, Digital Currency is going to be a reality, but first is not always best... Let me go dial up AOL to check out MySpace for updates... Merchants have to wait at least over night for credit card transactions and pay around 3%. This is only one use of Blockchain. Who the hell would invest in an online bookstore? Amazon used the new technology the best and look at them today. If the old railroad companies realized they were in the transportation business instead of the railroad business we would all be driving around in Union Pacific cars or flying on Flagler Air Lines. |
|
Quoted: No imagine all you said without a bank account, low fees and quick settlement. Merchants have to wait at least over night for credit card transactions and pay around 3%. This is only one use of Blockchain. Why would they be unable to extract the same benefits while still offering their customers the same services? Why would a consumer move their financial assets from the relative security (from theft and volatility )of a bank to a crypto currency, please try to explain this without saying the dollar is about to crash to zero. How much financial traffic has been handled on any crypto? These are people that spent millions of dollars running the straightest fiber optic line possible between Chicago and New York to gain a tiny arbitrage advantage. Seems if they could gain such a price advantage on transfers, they would have already jumped. Not to mention that all you benefits are not present in the current interation of Bitcoin, its slow and expensive to use. |
|
Quoted:
1. What happens when the financial players strip out the blockchain technology and use it to run their transactions? 2. Why would they be unable to extract the same benefits while still offering their customers the same services? 3. Why would a consumer move their financial assets from the relative security (from theft and volatility )of a bank to a crypto currency, please try to explain this without saying the dollar is about to crash to zero. Not to mention that all you benefits are not present in the current interation of Bitcoin, its slow and expensive to use. Quoted:
Quoted: No imagine all you said without a bank account, low fees and quick settlement. Merchants have to wait at least over night for credit card transactions and pay around 3%. This is only one use of Blockchain. Not to mention that all you benefits are not present in the current interation of Bitcoin, its slow and expensive to use. 2. One of the biggest advantages of Blockchain is decentralization. So banks can only do so much to control all of it. 3. They already do. Western Union, Wire transfers. Sometimes they get lost http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/15/ups-loses-inheritance-nearly-1m-then-offers-32-refund.html Blockchain is way more secure than any current situation. Bitcoin in its current form will not work as a currency. It was more of a proof of concept. Currency is probably the least exciting thing about Blockchain technology. Follow the CEO of Overstock.com He can explain the benefits of Blockchain better than most. Forget about Bitcoin or crypto currency. Think Blockchain. |
|
Quoted: No imagine all you said without a bank account, low fees and quick settlement. Merchants have to wait at least over night for credit card transactions and pay around 3%. This is only one use of Blockchain. Who the hell would invest in an online bookstore? Amazon used the new technology the best and look at them today. If the old railroad companies realized they were in the transportation business instead of the railroad business we would all be driving around in Union Pacific cars or flying on Flagler Air Lines. 
You will got no argument that the usury is too high on electronic payment transfers, but banking and finance are among the highest in terms of regulatory compliance overhead. Someone has to pay for it. Eventually the crypto networks will be brought under the same compliance if they survive or are permitted to operate legally. |
|
Quoted:
Blockchain is way more secure than any current situation. |
|
Quoted:
I would debate blockchain against public key cryptography, please correct me if I am wrong here. Blockchain relies on the size of the network in distributed nodes to ensure the integrity of the blockchain. A highly inefficient model, but it does solve a problem. The risk to that model is the consolidation of nodes which could own the network. (Due to electrical costs, it appears that consolidation continues to happen in the crypto coin world.) Public key cryptography requires a trusted certificate authority, and then all digital signed transactions can be safely trusted from untrusted parties because we can validate the signature through an efficient crypto algo (read no brute force cracking). Am I missing something key to the "more secure" claim? Quoted:
Quoted:
Blockchain is way more secure than any current situation. 1) Blockchain implementations don't rely on the size of the network to ensure integrity, but rather on a) the distribution of nodes among separate, nonaligned actors (this is generally what is called decentralized) or b) trusted nodes run by known entities (centralized, or private). In a decentralized setup, the size of the network does come into play, as it's a lot harder to take the majority in a system of a million nodes than it is to take the majority in a system of a thousand nodes. Blockchain has a couple meanings in use. The simplest refers to the tamper-evident data format at the core. Basically, blocks (or groups/chunks) of data are cryptographically "chained" together. The cryptographic hash of block A is included in block B; the hash value of B is then included into C, etc. Tampering is easily detected, as the hash value of a modified block is different, and integrity of the whole thing unzips from the corrupt block forward. Most people who refer to blockchain are referring to a larger architecture, also including the surrounding governance/control stuff that verifies hashes (integrity), etc. 2) Trusted-certificate-authority schemes include a chain-of-trust issue. That is, if the root is compromised, there's a (cough) problem. You can google/bing/duckduckgo around and read about various issues in the real world related to that. https://www.google.com/search?q=root+certificate+authority+(compromised|compromise) Bitcoin and most blockchain implementations have no root. Their architectures include Byzantine fault tolerance, which addresses something known as the "Byzantine generals problem" -- that is, there are unknown bad actors in the system, selectively screwing things up (deliberate, or intermittently malfunctioning hardware, or ...) So there's that. |
|
Quoted:
Ahhhhhh... To burn through VC cash so freely, those were the days. Quoted:
Quoted: Yep. during the dot com bubble a lot of those companies didn't have positive cash flow, so they couldn't fit into FA models, and when that happens how are you suppose to put a efficient multiple on that stock when you are missing literally half of the equation. |
|
Quoted: 1. Ripple is working very closely with banks for exactly the reason you state. 2. One of the biggest advantages of Blockchain is decentralization. So banks can only do so much to control all of it. 3. They already do. Western Union, Wire transfers. Sometimes they get lost http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/12/15/ups-loses-inheritance-nearly-1m-then-offers-32-refund.html Blockchain is way more secure than any current situation. Bitcoin in its current form will not work as a currency. It was more of a proof of concept. Currency is probably the least exciting thing about Blockchain technology. Follow the CEO of Overstock.com He can explain the benefits of Blockchain better than most. Forget about Bitcoin or crypto currency. Think Blockchain. The Anarachist and Liberterian dream of a bankless world isnt going to happen. In its 7 ish years of existence, excluding speculation, Bitcoins largest uses has been drug purchases, money laundering and giving of access to hard currencies in failed states with foreign currency controls, ie Venezuela. I am not saying that one of the currencies wont be utilized, but it will be as means of transfer and immediate conversion to state currencies, but its utilization rate will probably be about the same Linux users. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hear tulips are making a comeback... |
|
Speaking as someone who was very skeptical of Bitcoin when it surfaced. I am thrilled to death to have been very very wrong. One or two posters in this thread have been correct that many here can't see the forest for the trees. Everyone needs to stop thinking currency and think about the endless myriad of use cases block chain technology presents, and how all of these use cases can improve our lives. I can't say whether or not Bitcoin will survive long term, if I had to guess I would say it wont. It's antiquated from a technological perspective , and can only handle a small fraction of the transactions that newer block chains can. But it was indeed proof of concept, then again who knows it may be around for a long long time. If anyone here has not purchased some crypto currency or tokens of some sort , and are thinking of doing so. The best advice I can give is do some research and invest in block chains that have real world use cases. There is seriously big money behind coins like Ethereum, Ripple, Stellar and Factom. |
|
Quoted:
He doesn't have 12" dick, supermodel wives, and 5% body fat like Arfcom members, either. Quoted:
Quoted:
I doubt he knows as much as arfcom members. |
|
Quoted:
A couple thoughts: 1) Blockchain implementations don't rely on the size of the network to ensure integrity, but rather on a) the distribution of nodes among separate, nonaligned actors (this is generally what is called decentralized) or b) trusted nodes run by known entities (centralized, or private). In a decentralized setup, the size of the network does come into play, as it's a lot harder to take the majority in a system of a million nodes than it is to take the majority in a system of a thousand nodes. Blockchain has a couple meanings in use. The simplest refers to the tamper-evident data format at the core. Basically, blocks (or groups/chunks) of data are cryptographically "chained" together. The cryptographic hash of block A is included in block B; the hash value of B is then included into C, etc. Tampering is easily detected, as the hash value of a modified block is different, and integrity of the whole thing unzips from the corrupt block forward. Most people who refer to blockchain are referring to a larger architecture, also including the surrounding governance/control stuff that verifies hashes (integrity), etc. 2) Trusted-certificate-authority schemes include a chain-of-trust issue. That is, if the root is compromised, there's a (cough) problem. You can google/bing/duckduckgo around and read about various issues in the real world related to that. https://www.google.com/search?q=root+certificate+authority+(compromised|compromise) Bitcoin and most blockchain implementations have no root. Their architectures include Byzantine fault tolerance, which addresses something known as the "Byzantine generals problem" -- that is, there are unknown bad actors in the system, selectively screwing things up (deliberate, or intermittently malfunctioning hardware, or ...) So there's that. In re to public key cryptography. A lapse of security is bad. Same thing for any system including ones in a blockchain. If an exchange gets compromised and the crypto currency is stolen do you blame blockchain or the lapse in security? Same thing for compromising a CA. Security is layered for a reason. When you are dealing with a financial network, security exists at every protocol layer. Even if you are able to forge a signature, your IP address would be blocked for example. At the end of the day, effiency will be demanded of any blockchain tech. As I stated earlier, we will see an evolution and I believe it will have to merge with public key cryptography. I can also see an opportunity for a product like Elasticsearch to incorporate blockchain functionality into its indexing architecture for people who want the overhead of a blockchain. The data blocks are already immutable, and from a searching capability it’s unmatched. |
|
Quoted:
I have not researched the node distribution of the crypto networks, but what I have read is that there is a lot of consolidation going on due to its intrinsic inneficient, power hungry design. So your distributed network architecture transforms from an inch deep, mile wide into a inch wide, mile deep architecture. And I would imagine that those consolidations of processing power are able to harvest the network fees driving others out of the network. I would think that this could produce a geographical risk as this consolidation continues. Of course a closed/private system can manage this, but then blockchain is also moot. In re to public key cryptography. A lapse of security is bad. Same thing for any system including ones in a blockchain. If an exchange gets compromised and the crypto currency is stolen do you blame blockchain or the lapse in security? Same thing for compromising a CA. Security is layered for a reason. When you are dealing with a financial network, security exists at every protocol layer. Even if you are able to forge a signature, your IP address would be blocked for example. At the end of the day, effiency will be demanded of any blockchain tech. As I stated earlier, we will see an evolution and I believe it will have to merge with public key cryptography. I can also see an opportunity for a product like Elasticsearch to incorporate blockchain functionality into its indexing architecture for people who want the overhead of a blockchain. The data blocks are already immutable, and from a searching capability it's unmatched. Quoted:
Quoted:
A couple thoughts: 1) Blockchain implementations don't rely on the size of the network to ensure integrity, but rather on a) the distribution of nodes among separate, nonaligned actors (this is generally what is called decentralized) or b) trusted nodes run by known entities (centralized, or private). In a decentralized setup, the size of the network does come into play, as it's a lot harder to take the majority in a system of a million nodes than it is to take the majority in a system of a thousand nodes. Blockchain has a couple meanings in use. The simplest refers to the tamper-evident data format at the core. Basically, blocks (or groups/chunks) of data are cryptographically "chained" together. The cryptographic hash of block A is included in block B; the hash value of B is then included into C, etc. Tampering is easily detected, as the hash value of a modified block is different, and integrity of the whole thing unzips from the corrupt block forward. Most people who refer to blockchain are referring to a larger architecture, also including the surrounding governance/control stuff that verifies hashes (integrity), etc. 2) Trusted-certificate-authority schemes include a chain-of-trust issue. That is, if the root is compromised, there's a (cough) problem. You can google/bing/duckduckgo around and read about various issues in the real world related to that. https://www.google.com/search?q=root+certificate+authority+(compromised|compromise) Bitcoin and most blockchain implementations have no root. Their architectures include Byzantine fault tolerance, which addresses something known as the "Byzantine generals problem" -- that is, there are unknown bad actors in the system, selectively screwing things up (deliberate, or intermittently malfunctioning hardware, or ...) So there's that. In re to public key cryptography. A lapse of security is bad. Same thing for any system including ones in a blockchain. If an exchange gets compromised and the crypto currency is stolen do you blame blockchain or the lapse in security? Same thing for compromising a CA. Security is layered for a reason. When you are dealing with a financial network, security exists at every protocol layer. Even if you are able to forge a signature, your IP address would be blocked for example. At the end of the day, effiency will be demanded of any blockchain tech. As I stated earlier, we will see an evolution and I believe it will have to merge with public key cryptography. I can also see an opportunity for a product like Elasticsearch to incorporate blockchain functionality into its indexing architecture for people who want the overhead of a blockchain. The data blocks are already immutable, and from a searching capability it's unmatched. https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency |
|
intersting article. Ransomware folks are moving away from bitcoin due to volatility in the currency.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/18/bitcoin-fluctuations-ransomware-cybercrminals-malware-developers |