I never posted here but this board made me laugh a lot, so I'd like to have a chat.
I worked for different technology consulting firms and I now work for as a partner in a PE, I see a lot of those "crypto/blockchain companies. I could still be saying total BS but here is what we often see, curious about your POVs :
-99.9% of the blockchain use-cases could be done more efficiently without blockchain technology
-99.9% of the blockchain projects could be done without tokens
-DLT is just a fancy spreadsheet. Decentralization & transparency are good for bitcoin where they operate in a trustless environment. But in the real world (that most of NEETs do not understand), there is always some level of trust. Decentralization is always a meme since someone is paying for it and will want to rule it.
-Those expensive tokens make 0 sense, even if a company would use the services offered by the project behind it, they will never buy some tokens. Hyperledger is the most widely used platform for these new projects and no tokens (or at least no value is attached to them) are necessary.
-Using cryptos is often a huge burden for companies (liquidity, volatility, exchange). -In a year top regulation (and most importantly taxes) will buttfuck cryptos.
-I helped developing a few blockchain use-cases and every time the harsh truth comes back : it’s impossible to disrupt the middlemen because they are sitting on centuries of due-diligence and rules that makes them irreplaceable. The job of a notary or a bank can be nicely replaced with DLTs, the licenses they have make them irreplaceable.
If you would have told me that Amazon could make the postal service run on Sundays even 5 years ago, I would have laughed. Now I get packages on Sunday
> because shipping a package is equal to selling a 200K house..
no timestamp op is a faggot
Yes user, there are shitcoins.
Shipping hundreds of thousands of packages is though
Wont say, In the nederlands
Volatility will stabilize with higher market cap. BTC ups and downs seem big, but they're nothing if you compare the % changes to the first years. In the end it will stabilize like gold. As for use cases, yes most ICOs don't need a blockchain. But BTC, ethereum and all the ICOs are creating a new crypto economy while we still live in a fiat world.
waarschijnlijk in Arnhem. Echter gaat het daar niet iets simpels als de gelrepas.. Pasje waarmee je korting kunt krijgen op diverse activiteiten.
Je moet echt wel heel ver heel zijn geestelijk om te denken dat je een notaris en een gemeente ambtenaar zomaar even uit het bestel weg kunt snijden.
Dan moet zoiets eerst door de tweede kamer en vervolgens door de eerste kamer en voor je het weet ben je 8 jaar verder en is tegen die tijd dat hele bitcoin allang als een zeepbel uit elkaar geknapt.
Dan ben je of gedesillusioneerd of gestoord.
Om je een gerelateerd voorbeeld te geven. Nederlandse kansspel wetgeving on online casino spellen. Dat loopt al bijna 10 jaar in de politiek om die wetgeving te wijzigen.. Zijn al amendementen gemaakt, is al in de eerste kamer geweest, is al dit aan gedaan, dat aan gedaan.
>the licenses they have make them irreplaceable
literally taxi drivers around a globe argument against uber, how that worked out?
its old world weapon -never works long term.
If you don't get cryptoconomics and that only 97% and not 99.9% crypto is bs (wich is huge number of legit ones acually), and you not larping about your job....than fuck it annon...
> because a license is the same thing as a 100 year old codified law.
As a matter of fact required licenses are virtually always the product of an existing law.
Any argument that says something won't happen because incumbents don't want it to happen is fundamentally flawed. People were skeptical that automobiles were going to be adopted because 99% of roads were dirt roads designed for horses, well the entire world ended up implementing an entirely separate infrastructure for automobiles because they were more efficient.
Likewise, significant changes to the existing legal framework will be required for crypto to be effectively implemented, but it will happen. It might be harder for crypto to go through though. There will probably be significant pushback as ultimately crypto will make the function of nation-states irrelevant through blockchain + AI.
Maybe it won't happen without physical conflict, i.e. a crypto revolution sort of a like the communist revolutions that complete replaces existing governing systems with a new system.
But even if this happens a long time from now, the current crypto bubble will continue because of sheer hype over the new technology
>Likewise, significant changes to the existing legal framework will be required for crypto to be effectively implemented, but it will happen. It will happen with DLT, not crypto. Essentially, you don't need crypto if you don't need utility tokens. And you DON'T need utility tokens.
blockchain is literally a 2009 technology.
my father is your fathers supervisor down at the local gloryhole. he said he needs him to come in for a sunday shift and fill in for steve over in booth 76.
Keep in mind that crypto tokens are not fundamentally different from regular coins like Bitcoin or Monero, they can be anonymously exchanged for each other (i.e. for drug money). Thus, in order to be implemented, they will be vulnerable to the same anti-money-laundering concerns. That's exactly the reason why PayPal, AliPay and even some banks banned any crypto purchases
electricity is here how much?, and we bearly starting harvesting it effectively and dumping fosile fules...
Yes they are not efficient for now, if we talk tps and implementation, but potential of smartcontrects and true global economy could make your every day livfe 1000x more efficient in 20 years...
The natural limitation of smart contracts is verifying real-life events, you will always need a human actor to do that. So I don't think there will be massive, dramatic changes other than just cost reduction. People are fantasizing about IoT too much.
>Steam engines were 1000* more efficient than those horse carts.
So, so wrong. Steam engines were way less efficient than horses. Their advantage was that they didn't die like horses, and didn't need to stop for rest.
Kinda like how smart contracts can work automatically...
It can take awhile for some technologies to gain traction. A decade isn't too old.
Even if the vast majority of cryptocurrencies might not be needed, you still ultimately need at least one to exist that will provide an incentive for running public DLT software (bitcoin).
Disagree. Real life events can be communicated to the blockchain through oracles (which is why this board is so obsessed about ChainLink), and sufficiently advanced AI can verify a significant majority of real life events.
Keep in mind ultimately your perception of "reality" is just data processed by your brain that comes in from your biological sensors
>Shit done on the blockchain would be more efficient without it We're betting on it becoming more efficient
>No need for tokens Tokens aren't strictly necessary, but they can be convenient for online services and hopefully won't be so goddamn volatile in the future
>Fancy spreadsheet Gotta take your word for that m8
>Laws and shit That's cultural, if the blockchain is a cheaper option these guys are definitely gonna lose their jobs
>you still ultimately need at least one to exist that will provide an incentive for running public DLT software (bitcoin). If you're an institution interacting with other institutions, you need neither bitcoin, nor any additional incentive to run a node (other than the ability to interact with others).
>Real life events can be communicated to the blockchain through oracles Do you have a liberal arts degree? In order to be communicated to the blockchain, real life events first have to be recorded by someone.
>sufficiently advanced AI can verify a significant majority of real life events. In other words, a human-level IQ. So when (and if) THAT happens, we'll talk about the real revolution.
You can send litterally millions from one address to another with sub-cent fees and close to instant confirmation.
>B-b-but it's not better then banks!!!
>99.9% eternally deluded. maybe like 80% but yeah most tokens are useless. you're still a salty ass nocoiner though.
What do you mean not allowed? All the government needs is a record. If the record comes from a decentralised blockchain then that’s much more reliable than issuing licenses to people
>But muh laws! I guess since laws never change I can go to the nearest slave auction and buy some niggers huh?
You're actually retarded for thinking that will be the end all be all
Yeah and if you pay for a coffee you have 20x markup basically.
Nobody needs your stupid internet money. That said I've made a pretty penny myself, but come on pull your head out of your ass.
The entire reason why bitcoin gained traction is because it was a way to manage value without having to rely on centralized institutions. So in a crypto-run world whatever transactions done between institutions are still operating within a public DLT ecosystem (bitcoin)
>Do you have a liberal arts degree? No, CS
>In order to be communicated to the blockchain, real life events first have to be recorded by someone. I am saying AI can do that, harder the task the complex the AI. You don't need human-level IQ to verify many many real life events
>The entire reason why bitcoin gained traction is because it was a way to manage value without having to rely on centralized institutions Yes, it was a way to rebel against the authorities, partly successful due to its darknet use. But the institutional and business environment is not crypto anarchy, it never seeked a completely trustless system.
>No, CS So you don't understand the difference between recording events and passing them to a distributed ledger?
>I am saying AI can do that, harder the task the complex the AI. You don't need human-level IQ to verify many many real life events So far you need a human to verify even the most basic ones, like if your car broke or if your roof leaks.
by law is not permitted to sell a house (like you can sell a newspaper or a bag of crisps or a bicycle for example) directly to another person.. It needs to go via a government official.
And government officials are not going to make themself obsolete and out of work because of a new invention. And not even talking about stamp duties and other taxes which would without those leave them with budget deficits..
Unlike a horse which has in fact nothing to do with a government and can be basically thrown of a bridge and be replaced by a steam engine.
thats only cos u think these fucking digital tulips are worth anything. i can write a fucking document in word with a sum and pretend its a check and send it over to someone else via whatsupp instantly... thats sorta whats up with these chuck e cheese coins
and obviously you never purchased a property because you are talking about licenses..
It's not USPS that does the Sunday deliveries btw, it's their own last mile delivery employees.
>Never seeked a completely trustless system That just goes back to my original point about what institutions want not mattering
>the difference between recording events and passing them to a distributed ledger I don't understand, a sensor can record an event, which will be retrieved by an oracle and passed to the blockchain
>So far you need a human to verify even the most basic ones
Yes, so far, two decades ago image recognition like we have today wasn't considered feasible until neural nets got picked up again. Is an image recongition algorithm a human-level IQ? Anyways this is just an issue of sufficient time needed for research
>That just goes back to my original point about what institutions want not mattering But it matters. If they're able to cut costs using DLT, they'll use it. If they're able not to use public chains, they'll do it. Private and commercial distributed ledgers have been in use since 2015, if not earlier.
>I don't understand, a sensor can record an event How can a sensor record a physical injury? A divorce? Property acquisition? Property damage? The list can go on for very long. A sensor cannot do what a human person can. Even something as simple as confirming that a person is present in a given place cannot be done with a sensor unless everyone is wearing micro chips in their body.
>Yes, so far, two decades ago image recognition like we have today wasn't considered feasible until neural nets got picked up again. Is an image recongition algorithm a human-level IQ? But image recognition is a different thing, it cannot be compared to complex situations. Basically, all your arguments boil down to a totally different area, AI rather than blockchain. But any advancement in AI will certainly overshadow blockchain and smart contracts, it will obviously be more profound and important. Smart contracts will look just like a tiny gimmick compared with AI. I don't see it coming right now.
They used a shitty Microsoft framework >kys idiot
Oh, and saved TWENTY NINE THOUSAND, NINE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLARS In the process. Yeah, sure, shitty HJHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHA >laughs hysterically
Anyway, user, there’s no escape. You’ll have to accept it eventually.
reducing cost is not always beneficial.. In China they reduce cost all the time by using cheaper labor and cheaper materials... which results in products that fall apart very quickly..
>But it matters... I think we're talking about two different things. You're trying to figure out how existing institutions will use DLT, public or private, and you think public DLT projects are worthless because you can't find a decent use case because the existing legal framework won't allow them to come to fruition. I am saying public DLT will bring about an entirely new way of organization that will make the existing legal framework obsolete (like the DAO), because it will be more efficient (but it will be hard to get there without conflict). Rethink your use cases, except this time pretend that the existing legal framework doesn't exist.
>How can a sensor... >All your arguments have to do with AI.. I used the sensor/oracle example to show you how to get offchain data onto the blockchain. You dispute the ability of sensors to provide useful verified data without human-level IQ. I dispute that by providing an example of an advanced task (image recognition) that is possible today that most don't consider to be human-level IQ; point being that we don't need human-level IQ to get useful data.
Second point: even if you have to use humans for the data source, everything else can be done through DLT and that is transformational.
>I am saying public DLT will bring about an entirely new way of organization that will make the existing legal framework obsolete (like the DAO) What you're talking about is an anarchist vision, a vision of getting rid of the Social contract and replacing the government and its services. But in reality it won't necessarily come true (especially in our lifetime), and as long as the Social contract is the backbone of society, the government and institutions will simply come up with methods of reducing their costs without undermining the modus operandi, which, as I said, does NOT require using public blockchains.
>I dispute that by providing an example of an advanced task (image recognition) that is possible today that most don't consider to be human-level IQ But it's not really a complex task from a societal point of view. Face recognition doesn't take different factors and circumstances into account, it merely finds a pattern in an image. Other tasks (among the ones that I listed) that take relatively few efforts by a human, still cannot be automated in full.
>Second point: even if you have to use humans for the data source, everything else can be done through DLT and that is transformational. Automation and decentralization is nothing new. The real benefit comes from being a trustless system, but in real life it doesn't matter as much as people think.
>as long as social contract is the backbone of society I wasn't even talking about this in philosophical terms at all. I was just thinking in terms of what is more efficient. If a trustless decentralized governence system is better at administrating than the existing bloated legal and business framework, and the new system can't be realized because it's being hindered by the very framework that it's trying to replace, what is the problem, the existing framework or the new system? >won't necessarily come true (especially in our lifetime) Notice I've never said this will happen in our lifetimes. The time scale is unknown. That being said that has nothing to do with the current bubble.
>merely finds patterns in a image... You're doing that cliche "moving the goalposts" thing with AI development. Yes, those things can't be fully automated, but two decades ago people thought image recognition like we have today was impossible. Since neither of us are AI researchers this is a moot point.
>benefit comes from being a trustless system I think you're viewing trust in a binary trusted/untrusted way, when in fact what we're trying to do is minimizing the amount of trust needed.
Her der no one will gamble at the casino because you have to buy chips