Only High IQ Discussion
Other urls found in this thread:
futurism.com
quora.com
web.stanford.edu
youtu.be
twitter.com
ok that's valid , keep going
/thread
because big tech firms can't just change everything in a few weeks
they need years to make changes
Microsoft didn't develop an internet browser because they thought it would go away in a few years.
Adapting new technology at this early stage carries a major risk and they can just wait and see if it works out then buy the companies that have been working on it.
This is how they always do it.
Because it's a solution in search of a problem. Nobody fucking needs "trustless distributed Kickstarter alternative" because for any non-trivial thing you still need to trust some third party off chain, there is 99% chance your contract has some critical bug in it and overall this is simply not an issue most people have.
Also it's against their centralized nature , so when they roll out with something it has to be fully developed and i agree that takes time in giants like these
Also, big companies want to be helped by emergent tech, but a decentralized platform would not make then better, but change them from the core. I don't think that this is what they want.
I only trust crypto in the form of a payment processor and as a support to supply chains.
Blockchain isn't very useful in general. The only useful application is cryptocurrency, and the only useful cryptocurrencies are Bitcoin and Monero. Monero will likely become less useful when Bitcoin adopts privacy features.
The only useful thing to come out of blockchain/cryptocurrency is Bitcion, which is what the inventor intended.
Ez because the market is not receptive to the idea of digital appreciating currency
It's almost as if the bigger you get the harder it is to implement company-wide changes, you fucking mongoloid.
I forgot. My father in law works with big banks and payment processors here in Chile. We were speaking the other day, and he told me that every bank he knows is "seriously looking into blockchain".
I know that doesn't mean that current coins are going up in value, but that the tech is at least being considered by big players.
Stupid question for high iq.
They have more at stake on moving from a platform that's proven to work to completely revamp it to blockchain. That's why they move with caution.
Can't agree here
1. Enable distributed, autonomous marketplaces
2. Reduce friction in business transactions
3. Manage and secure decentralized private records
4. Track the provenance of products and materials
>microsoft and ibm are on this because they're desperate
>zuckerberg is on this because he wants to candidate for presidency
>google is smarter than this and all their funds are locked up in AI which is a lot more practical and promising
>apple and everyone else has no reason to touch this vaporwave
i know more about blockchain than you do, and the uses are very limited while the expenses are too high
lol both very wrong. this board is just dumb asf no point in trying to have a discussion with normies/retards
Kodak invented the digital camera in 1975 but didn't actually bring a single digital camera to market until 1995 because they were afraid they'd be cannibalizing their film business. Companies that are big and successful don't usually like to tear down their own business models. Also, if small and nimble companies/projects are disrupting their business models, they usually prefer to go the acquisition route rather than using resources to compete with them.
Should I keep going?
>>google is smarter than this and all their funds are locked up in AI which is a lot more practical and promising
Google has invested well over $1B in blockchain projects over the years faggot.
>Google has invested well over $1B in blockchain projects over the years faggot.
Lmfao post proof
How wrong , go on
>Companies that benefit from a data monopoly
>Supposed to want to adopt technology that decentralizes data
Yea sure, you seem very high IQ OP.
So it's a obvious threat , should they be doing more to be ready for this tech once fully developed
P.s. I don't agree with the author of the post , but some people are hence the discussions
Or, it's just sheer pigheadedness. Xerox is the best example. They had employees at PARC who invented personal computers, ethernet, Postcript, and a whole slew of technology that the idiots in the board room passed on, because "it's not our business model". They let BILLIONS walk right out the door, it was even more idiotic than HP letting Wozniac walk with the Apple computer. (Don't start on "Apple stole from Xerox" - my father worked with everyone involved in that story, and said until the day he died the public story is bullshit.) Kodak and Polaroid had the same problem - the CEOs had no vision.
Amazon is the most likely of all of them to adopt blockchain, for their shipping. If they're not, they're dumb. Apple won't jump in, except maybe for global shipping and tracking, but if what they have isn't broken, why fix it?
Fuck Facebook. Who cares what the fuck they use, if you have a Facebook account, you're an idiot. I hope the story that broke today ends them.
But a lot of people just don't understand how complicated and expensive converting the building blocks of huge corporations like that can be, from a coding, security, training, and implementation angle - and the transition will bumpy, no matter how you plan it out. IF blockchain has a legit use for them, they'll switch over, but if it's infrastructure, it's not something they'll make PR releases over, they'll just quietly go about the transition - and something on that scope will be done at glacial speeds. You don't just upend your shipping business overnight. You test it, test it more, and test it again.
I see this is impatience on the crypto-sphere, vs. the actual cost and effort of conversion on the business side. Sure, if you're into blockchain and see the use for it, you push for it to happen - but from their side, it's just potential disruption of their bottom line, and they tread slowly and carefully there.
So elaborate on the real story
its almost impossible for large established firms to actually adopt innovation that threatens any part of their core business.
they can adopt an efficiency gain but not a paradigm shift
Yes. But do you understand how difficult it is to change record keeping, for instance? You're talking about rebuilding systems here. Systems that have had millions, if not billions building and updating and maintaining. Sure, in a perfect world, it has use, but you don't just patch blockchain into existing systems. That's why it could be decades before the government even thinks about using blockchain for anything.
Except DLT is a huge threat to big data
Existentional threat that is , adopt or pivot
Blockchain and Hashgraph are the future. Both will be used. Only a matter of how to transition to them from our current systems.
It could be a book, but the short version is: Everyone claimed they "stole" from Xerox for the Mac - the tech demos they got at PARC were during the development of the LISA, not the Mac, and they just got the same dog and pony show a bunch of other companies got. The second demo they got, they paid for with Apple stock, because some of the higher ups wised up and stopped them. The LISA borrowed heavily from the Alto, conceptually, but other companies were working on similar things. A lot of those concepts went over to the Mac, like the mouse. My dad said the only thing Apple stole was PARC's thunder. He said all those guys at Apple and Xerox and other early computer companies knew each other, and shared ideas all the time.
That, and Apple raided PARC for engineers once the Mac was going.
Some of the shit I've seen written about it astounds me with how wrong they get it, and a lot of it is urban myth. And, they weren't the only people who got the demos - they were just the most successful in that market.
A good write up is here:
They don't adopt it because it would kill their company.
Why doesn't facebook start with blockchain is?
is the same question as
Why doesn't Kim Jong Un start a democracy?
Interesting
GG for Apple though
Without the ability to reverse fraudulent transactions, blockchains are pretty useless.
Nice one brainlet.
What’s a fraudulent transaction? What happened was, you got tricked in to sending to the wrong address by a weak trusted centralised system called someone manipulating the internet to scam you. Blockchain will eliminate that eventually
>Adapting new technology at this early stage carries a major risk and they can just wait and see if it works out then buy the companies that have been working on it.
>This is how they always do it.
Remember when everyone jumped the gun on VR? youtu.be
many are reversible , eventually all will have this implemented
Not necessarily. Someone could just click on the wrong link/type the wrong address of their own accord