>Daily reminder that r/CryptoCurrency thinks "adoption" is "people buying things from stores" It is though you mouth breather.
Just arrived from Reddit, huh? >But that's what adoption really means It will never happen, and you know it, and even if it does, it will be stablecoins.
>a few companies lol, no
>Daily reminder that r/CryptoCurrency thinks "adoption" is "people buying things from stores" No it isn't. It's far too volatile, no one wants to buy anything with speculative shitcoins except diehard anarchist and technopunks because everyone hoards them as a store of value.
If any cryptocurrency was going to be used for payments, it would be one with a stable value.
If you look at research that is being done on crypto, you'll find that the REAL applications that are coming are extremely boring, corporate, business applications.
Take the red pill.
Not a single crypto beats bank credit for daily use, or even comes close.
The first one that does you want to go balls deep for a real interdimensional ride.
A few companies adopting smart contracts and enjoying a competitive advantage is going to lead to mass adoption. Some soylent drinking fag buying his wife a BBC dildo with Litecoin isn't adoption.
Dubs of truth
Those Nano-loving retards are really gonna kick themselves once they realized that their babies XRP and NANO are designed to be currency first, assets later. Their centralized natures, limitless supplies, and desire to be used for all quick easy payments basically ensures that once the speculative value of the coins get wiped away, they will fall and settle on a single price forever.
The masses don't need smart contracts. Thus, you cannot call a niche entity a "mass adoption" thing.
>The masses don't need smart contracts The entirety of capitalism is based on contracts
>It will never happen If it never happens, then there will be no mass adoption.
nothing smart about them, sure legit bussines will use chainlink and something owned by a guy named Vitalik. you wish currency coins are the only coins that are gonna stay
Smart contracts are limited to digitalized data. They have a limited application in real life and cannot substitute real contracts. You cannot digitalize reality.
>the masses don't need a thing that will make a thing they all rely on better in every way
Please fucking kill yourself you retard
>Gartner has estimated that by 2022, so-called ratified unbundled (i.e. defined impact) smart contracts will be in use by more than 25% of global organizations
Agreed and in the end it will be so seamless people wont even know they are on a smartcontract
>what is an oracle That's the exciting thing user, you can invest in smart contracts and oracles right now before true mass adoption arrives.
Oracles rely on digitalized data too.
You don't understand. If smart contracts confer businesses a competitive advantage, then they will become standard across the industries that benefit from them. Then the infrastructure will become less specialized and more idiot proof, allowing for normie adoption. Same with microcomputers, the internet, cellular phones, late pdas/early smartphones, cloud storage etc. Business adoption is the start of real widespread adoption. If you wait for the normietrain, you're too late.
yeah well i mean you went to reddit and brought back something retarded i don't know why you couldn't have just looked at what was written and fucking left it there? why bring it here? i don't need to know what they think. about ANYTHING.
>you cant digitalise reality what the fuck does this even mean? You can, and it's going to happen through smart contracts connected to oracles. Don't get left behind.
Do you realize the underlying semantics of the word "mass adoption"? It implies the broad masses of the population.
Satoshi literally called it "eletronic cash" though...
Evidently a number of people here also think it. Have you seen these retards in this thread saying Reddit is correct?
A person arbitrarily characterizing a real-life event as either "true" or "false" in the digital form is a single point of failure.
It doesn't imply individual human beings with Nano wallets on their iPhone. That will never happen. Mass adoption will be when businesses are all using DLT and making money from it.
Contracts. You wouldn't understand because you're a NEET who has never had to do anything, but contracts are civilization.
That's nothing more but intellectual dishonesty when you substitute the original idea of mass adoption of crypto with merely a technological gimmick
What the fuck does this even mean. Do you even understand what a smart contract is? while they can be triggered by humans, that's a shitty oracle solution, so they would ideally be automatic (and not arbitrary but based on pre-defined conditions).
Read this Only ful
>the original idea of mass adoption of crypto Cling to your cryptopunk ideals, but it's not gonna happen >merely a technological gimmick If you think smart contracts are a technological gimmick you're deluded
Also your posts don't make much sense, are you high?
I don't see any reason why a government would use a public cryptocurrency over forking their own.
Literally fucking everybody in modern civilization does something digitally that requires a contract you daft cunt.
>They have a limited application in real life and cannot substitute real contracts Literally the opposite of this is true.
Only fully digitized events can be automated with smart contracts in a trustless way (like financial or trading operations). Otherwise you're relying on a third party.
Th masses don't know what they want until it's given to them.
Same thing was siad about the internet in the beginning.
subtle link shill
All of which will be developed in-house. Best case, they’ll be forks of an existing codebase on a proprietary blockchain.
Why would banks buy Ripple tokens at market price, for example, and expose clients’ transfers to the insane volatility of today’s crypto “markets?” Far better to fork (aka copy) the code, and only let other banks participate in their new, faster, hard-forkable-if-absolutely-necessary transfer system.
>Cling to your cryptopunk ideals, but it's not gonna happen If it's not gonna happen, then there will not be mass adoption.
No, I am not a stinky
Hmmmm I wonder who's right. A retard FUDding smart contracts on a Mongolian basket weaving forum. Or multiple research institutes, consortiums, researchers and businesses all looking into implementing smart contracts.
Name one thing that cannot be digitised for a smart contract.
>If it's not gonna happen, then there will not be mass adoption. Holy fuck stop obsessing about the semantics around mass adoption you pedantic autistic fuck. You know very well it just means "is widely used".
I first thought this board was just shitting on Reddit for the fucks of it but it does seem like Reddit is the place for retards to act smart
Everything can be digitized when a designated person types in his computer "event A took place in real life and is valid". But in that case he is a single point of failure
>Daily reminder that "currency" cryptos are Reddit-tier worthless investments Finally another user on this god forsaken board understands.
Nano isn't centralized you brainlet.
>can't digitalize Kek, it's 'digitize.' And, what are mandatory electronic health records, what are e-signed agreements etc. This is unreal, how can there be people who have been inundated with link shilling for 6 months straight and who still haven't bothered to think about digital agreements and smart contracts.
I just expained to you that smart contracts, while they CAN be based on manual human input like this, won't be. They are best when they are automatic, triggered off a feed of data, provided by an oracle. A centralised oracle is a central point of failure. A decentralized one, on the other hand....? Mate, you really need to read more about this before you try to talk about it.
>completely dependent on the development and marketing of one central company, which also issues and holds the coin itself >not centralized
>They are best when they are automatic, triggered off a feed of data, provided by an oracle. That feed of data in turn boils down to human input, UNLESS we're talking about fully digital events (financial operations). That's where smart contracts are most effective.
Cryptographic proof of ownership =/= fully trustless system
>That feed of data in turn boils down to human input, If you think that all the datasets in the world, except for finance, are generated by people typing away at computers, you're an idiot. Web APIs and IoT will be very useful for smart contracts. And even if data has been collected by humans, that's fine, if for the purpose of your contract, you will accept that. There is no central point of failure when the oracle is decentralised - regardless of the source of the data.
Adoption in the short term will definitely not mean people paying a restaurant bill in litecoin. As is usual with all technological innovations (read Christensen on disruptive innovation), adoption will first involve usage in some *niche* area in a clunky but useful way, eventually becoming essential, and eventually becoming the obvious path forward for less niche areas. This niche might be remittances for poos in SV, it might be smart contracts for landlords, who knows.
However this is still thinking without foresight. r/cryptocurrency normies are assuming that we'll still be "picking up dinner" and so on as we currently are, just with a crypto being the mechanism of payment rather than cash? Highly unlikely. The way we interact with service providers is going to change significantly due to IoT and blockchain/microtransactions.
Adoption being "paying for dinner with litecoin" will, in the future, sound like a guy in the 1900s who's excited about engine tech saying "eventually, every horse will have a motor attached".
Nano is centralized. Otherwise, it can't have "free transactions".
Very thoughtful post, can you recommend something in particular to read by Christensen?
Iot is a meme and 10+ years away.
By then current coins will be forgotten
APIs are just intermediaries, they transform DIGITAL data from one format into another, nothing more. You seemingly don't even understand what you're talking about. Most human activities take place in real life and are not subject to automated verification. You can't invent electronic sensors for literally everything. Rent, supply chain, divorce, whatever. That's why you can't get rid of trusted third parties. A person who inputs data in a computer is always a single point of failure because he is subject to bias and fraud.
Daily reminder that Ripple is building out the infrastructure for "adoption" by the banks, central banks, and multinational corporations.
>Speculative moon kiddie wants speculative moons to last forever
Yeah, read The Innovator's Dilemma. There are pdfs everywhere if you don't want to buy it. You've probably heard the phrase 'disruptive innovation' a million times, but it's almost always used incorrectly. This was the book where he coined the phrase, describes how they happen with graphs and figures and historical examples. It'll open your eyes to why it keeps happening again and again, and why people continually fail to see big changes on the horizon. Quick enough read too.
If you think this is a barrier to smart contract adoption, at all, you're retarded.
Yeah, but it's rather retarded to fuss so much over decentralization when the potential point of failure is so plain and clear
we are literally at the point where corporations are printing their own money. Reminds me when money was not centralized by the state.
all that matters is that the pedophile papers currently in use are done away with, we can follow up with even more once that is complete first as a pre-requisite
What tokens do you think have a good chance of becoming adopted? Most sound pretty useless.
This. I don't give a fuck about smart contracts desu.
anyone got good info about contracts? I mean statistics and such. Would be a good indicator how many of them could be transformed into smart contracts.
Decentralization removes this failure by aggregation of results, trustworthiness rankings, etc.
how do you decentralize if most contracts are between 2 parties. Like if the goods arrived or are working?
Most chainlink etc will be able to is allowing decentralized betting on real life events, since that data is public.
When your data is provided by a human, decentralization is just an infrastructural gimmick
The point is moot. It's a point of failure that exists already for regular contracts.
I liked the idea that one could beat the illuminati money system with bitcoin. But now I see microchips and digital ID's transplanted into humans to be able to render the whole trust issue in the world through smart contracts.
So there's no big difference in the end.
with regular contracts you have lawyers and common sense you can use. People are much calmer if they can dispute a contract instead of listening to the all might anonymous network.
Don't know desu, that's why I'm just all in on promising platforms (Ethereum) so I don't have to learn about tokens on that platform. My logic is that if the value of some ERC20 takes off in a major way, the value of ETH will have to remain multiples of it, if only for security reasons.
My gut sense is that anything to do with remittances will have to take off eventually because a) it's a pain in the ass sending money around the world even in first world countries and b) it accounts for massive flows of money annually.
Ahaha it's this idiot again, always same guy
i give a fuck about crypto and smartcontracts insofar as it is a tool for me to use to create my vision
my entire goal and objective in this space is to use these tools as a spear to penetrate the eye of the needle and pass through from the absurd world (read: modern society and civilization where european nihilism is advocated under 1000 different disguises) and usher in the new era of the New Man and end the freedoms of the rubes (see average modern man)
Why is it when people talk about a real world application of a smart contract being better than a regular one, nobody can ever provide an example?
I'm not referring to things like financial institutions speaking to each other
Elaborate. If you saw another guy telling this obvious truth, it was not me.
cause it is not. Just deluded linkes hoping for the next Ethereum.
Except for efficiency and cost. Those fags will still be around, but firms will need fewer of them for clerical purposes on settled contracts that don't lead to dispute. Computers can easily do that job once there is a digital standard. And you can code smart contracts to have an escrow period for manual review once settlement conditions are submtted. It will be easy to establish belief in the system as cost savings become obvious.
>Except for efficiency and cost. With the added cost of human error in an immutable system.
mfw law merges with computer science in the exact same way that areas such as chemistry/biology/neuroscience/archaeology have in the last 10. In 10 years there'll be a branch of law which specialises in smart contracts, and which pushes the area technologically. In 15 years there'll be degree courses in computational law.
literally everything where one thing is triggered by another thing
Best subtle link shilling I've ever seen. Congrats on this, seriously.
Imagine insurance companies paying out after natural disasters (like hurricanes). You have builders required to build up to a certain code, say 100 mph wind speed. If the wind speed goes over 100 mph the insurance company pays out. However if wind speed is below 100 mph, the builder (or their insurance company) pays out. Now you need a decentralized data solution. Both parties have a interest in knowing the wind speed and knowing that the weather data is accurate. You can build smart contracts that will execute payments based on this data (potentially millions of dollars).
I'll never post again.
Which can be minimized at first by running the legacy process in parallel with smart contracts to work out the kinks. And, there can be automated review and built-in escrow if necessary. If that's the best argument you have against smart contracts then you better figure out how to invest in them. Feels good, man.
I have more examples. Hundreds actually. It's to early though. The world isn't ready to hear it.
Best subtle jibrel shilling I've ever seen. Congrats on this, seriously.
You're right there's literally hundreds of examples. it's not the right time to prove it. I'll wait. Patience.
Another subtle link shill stealthily showing the power of decentralized oracles. Congrats on this, seriously.
Automatic escrows are good, but you can never get rid of human involvement if you're dealing with real life events rather than digital ones. Which means, immutable smart contracts simply don't make sense in this case.
That's an idealistic vision, when you have to dispute the outcome due to human or technical errors or for any other reason, decentralized solutions don't give any additional benefit
I am not shilling stinky linky. Please use arguments.
That's a good point.
I'm sorry I don't see how human involvement in the contract process precludes the use of smart contracts. Immutability doesn't mean indisputability. Smart contracts can lower overhead on contracts that settle with no friction or disagreement between parties. They do not promise to make contract law or error obsolete.
user im not sure if youre being deliberately stubborn or something but it seems to me that youre simply pushing for the cons instead of seeing the pros about it. im just some other retard on an image board for autists but there are lots of smart people out there (the WEF article is something i go back to) that are clamoring over the benefits of smart contracts that i think it's stupid to simply handwave away the benefits by simply saying "the cons outweighs the pros" because that's what you just did. admittedly this is the only thing that is keeping me from investing in chainlink because i do not know how to put a number on the potential gains of firms/businesses adopting it (aka if it is really beneficial) so i agree with you in some way. i dont know how much more cheaper and efficient their processes would be, etc etc. so i can only read about other people in the know, and in that case, they are pretty much agreeing on that point, that it'd save billions, etc. i wont put money on it though since it seems stupid to invest in something that's not perfectly clear to me but i am not simply gonna balk at it or something
regarding this, it's funny imagining "oops it's in the blockchain now no takebacks" esp if you consider that businesses can simply run their own private blockchains that they can rollback when agreed upon