My Ethereum Prediction From 2017. Still Think I was Wrong?
Link to the original post is at the bottom. Ethereum made one mistake, talking about its future contributions before people could fully perceive them. for anyone that believes ethereum is undervalued it is my opinion you cannot comprehend abstract ideas or conceptualize what ehtereum and blockchain technology actually is. cryptocurrencies as a digital asset are cool, fun to play with and not typically a bad investment as they are based off the value of bitcoin. bitcoin as a form of currency has its place and will more than likely ( by means of Litecoin ) aquire a 50 billion dollar market share of cross border money transfer services current rates require 10%+ of the sent value. litecoin does this for about 1%-10% of that. (0.01%-1% and in actuality less in most cases ) divide 84 million coins (max available at production end) by 500 billion (yearly cross border money transfers) roughly $4500 per coin is the minimum value of each coin to cover just one year of money transfers. rest assured it will be higher. ethereum is efficiency , it is balance, equality, cooperation, innovation, security, and accountability. Ethereum is progress in the name of the greater good of all mankind not just the elite. Ethereum is a social Democracy all of this sounds nice .... which is what Ethereum promises. people need proof before investing. and that is why you will be just a moment to late. because once it's a sure thing everyone will be investing. blockchain technology is the real use of digital assets. imagine the following, all media content can be easily published on the blockchain providing two advantages, instant alert to its previous creation if applicable (through the entire database being accessible for instant search and comparison of all published media ) instant encryption ensuring piracy is lessened ( future application software will not be downloadable its code will exist in the ethereum "cloud based" network) the media can be viewed, shared, or done with as is desired, but only to the limits permitted by its creator and only when accessed through a supported ethereum network affiliate using ethereums "Token" to powe rthe software allowing the creator of the content to share their creation. furthermore the creator is capable of issuing their own proprietary tokens that allow them to essentially grant access to their creation to anyone in posession of their "token" The reason that you cannot comprehend Ethereum is the same reason your parents dont understand bitcoin, why your grandma will never comprehend the internet, why her mother doubted electricity, and her mother didnt see how coal could move a 50 ton train. that reason ? you are all just one generation behind in respect to grasping the concept, for which you have nothing to base its technology off of Ethereum is the next step in innovation. we all wondered what form the next leap in progress would take every great leap in technology is not recognized immediately but when initiated they cannot be stopped. the chain cannot be stopped it just moves forward. building on every advancement that comes before it. whatare these apps ?..... medical information will be on ethereum network.... the entire medical database of the world will be connected. acting as a living network updated instantaneously patients symptoms will have quantifiable values, vital statistics will be available for every patient that has ever had the symptoms that any given patient comes in with. by inputting the data of a patient the network uses event related probability to calculate a given set of all possible cases where the data matched with other patients ( millions of variables are considered in an instant.) to diagnose and treat patients according to the most succesful course of action as time goes on after years of trial and error the data will eventually reach a near 100% success rate. faster than we ever thought possible. Television. cable will end see my remaining thoughts down below for why. netflix style content will replace it. tokens will be distributed. by movie producers meaning a handful of affiliates have access to the rights to distribute them. and netflix will require you to buy its token to have access. pandora style radio tokens gps tokens, but why ? by making specific tokens account for specific services we can prevent inflation. we also give a value to our money supply. remember when we had money backed by gold ? a dollar could be exchanged for its value in gold. well thats your answer. we have returned to a barter system where i can trade my own services for your services or a future promise that you can at any time redeem said token for my service, or trade for other services. ultimately our money can be thought of as bitcoin and the gold is all other coins. fiat or at least a hard money currency will always exist although two things will occur because of that. people will not be as likely to keep large amounts of money outside of the system as it will depreciate. in most cases over long periods of time. take 10 dollars out for a year and when you come back to buy the equivelent in bitcoin you will likely receive less than if it stayd in the system. where as hard currency versions of bitcoin will retain their value. that theory should hold until 2041 when all coins have been mined and by that time i would bet everyone has jumpedon board. and global currencies will have traded in their fiatmoney to make huge gains from the appreciation of bitcoin integration. i believe bitcoin will be more than an investment it is a replacement as well as a return to the gold standard. if my outlook holds true then wewill all get an identity token. with that token you can vote on everything from what to spend the pto funds on to what roads need to be built in your city to whether that 150 million dollars should go towards researching the effects of mustard gas on purple monkeys or if it might be better served providing 2 and a half million children with water that hasnt been filled with biological waste. or maybe to give power to 20 million human beings that have lived their entire life without it. we will have a global currency (bitcoin) and all goods and services will add to its overall marketcap. one services sucess adds to the value of all services. if you do roofing in the the summer your toens will be more valuable. if people cant afford your service then they can contribute to the mining of that service if you allow it. if yoou want to support a cause like funding research on autism then you can go and buy their coin. their service is to find a cure and if its important to people then they will continue to do so. if it is meaningless we as a society will not buy their coin and they will have to find a new job, or keep it as a hobby. either way its not up to a group of people that find it unnecessary it is the decision of the entire world as a collective entity. many will read what i am about to say and it will cause everything i have said to be no longer looked at as credible. for this i am sorry that you are unable to think of anyone in this world but yourself, and it is people like you that have brought us to this point. socialism always failed in the worlds eyes as did communism. on paper the greatest civilization and its structure are ones in which people work together and do not worry about accumulating wealth in order to live in excess. the wealth is distributed equally, some positions which are harder to fill or require more skills will in the end offer higher pay for their tokens but only because there will be a supply and demand effect created due to its nature of less people being capable of supplying that service/good. on the flip side i believe that by the same token certain positions will ultimately demand a far higher pay. do you want to clean shit out of a porta potty ? probably not so when you need someone else to do it guess what you are going to pay that guy/girl exactly what it costs to have someone do it or you can do it yourself either way supply and demand dictates the value and the most agreed upon value between the provider and the consumer will prevail. Card
Ethereum. Before I explain why, I need you to understand something. Bitcoin and Ethereum are at two completely different stages within their potential. They also do not share the exact same mission; therefore, you do have to understand their differences to form an opinion about which one has the biggest use. Before we look at the coins in detail, let's start with the potential ROI (100% = 2x Original Investment). Bitcoin’s current market cap is $193,165,354,468 in order for you to make 100% this number would need to double to just under $400 Billion. Ethereum’s current market cap is $44,715,990,083 , roughly 1/5th of Bitcoins. In order for you to make 100%, the price would need to increase to just under $90 Billion. - This is obviously more probable. This will not serve as the only variable in making a decision, we now need to break down their uses and differences. Bitcoin What is Bitcoin? A purely peer-to-peer version of electronic cash would allow online payments to be sent directly from one party to another without the burdens of going through a financial institution. Digital signatures provide part of the solution, but the main benefits are lost if a trusted party is still required to prevent double-spending. We propose a solution to the double-spending problem using a peer-to-peer network. The network timestamps transactions by hashing them into an ongoing chain of hash-based proof-of-work, forming a record that cannot be changed without redoing the proof-of-work. The longest chain not only serves as proof of the sequence of events witnessed, but proof that it came from the largest pool of CPU power. As long as honest nodes control the most CPU power on the network, they can generate the longest chain and outpace any attackers. The network itself requires minimal structure. Messages are broadcasted on a best effort basis, and nodes can leave and rejoin the network at will, accepting the longest proof-of-work chain as proof of what happened while they were gone. Peer-to-Peer (P2P): is a technical way of saying computers (peers) that are connected together via the internet. Timestamps: are a sequence of characters that identify exactly when a certain event occurred, giving the exact time and date. Hashing: is the process of compacting large quantities of data into smaller fixed sizes. Proof-of-work: is the verification that the individual peer created the said hash Nodes: are computers that are connected to the blockchain Bitcoin is a first generation cryptocurrency, that was created in 2009 with the intention to become the currency of the internet. Its Applications Safe Haven Being that billions of people are under the control of a broke economy or volatile dictatorship, Bitcoin is beginning to become a medium in which people within underdeveloped countries feel as a more secure place to store their value. Remittances The current operation costs roughly $600B annually, all at the expense of separated families. Bitcoin can now serve as a tool that operates the exact same way and only costs 1/10th of the price. A transaction on the Bitcoin network also processes faster therefore giving the people a strong reason to make the switch. Currency Bitcoin is recognized as an asset, but can also be identified as an efficient currency in which people can buy and exchange with. With this being an application of Bitcoin, as the market continues to decrease in volatility, the use for Bitcoin will increase within businesses and everyday people that transact on a daily basis. These are just a few, but for the sake of answer length, let’s move onto some of the scalability issues with Bitcoin that hinder my decision of choosing Bitcoin over Ethereum. Bothering Issues with Bitcoin Energy A study from Digiconomist found that each transaction on the Bitcoin blockchain uses 236 KWh worth of electricity, this amount is enough to power 8 U.S households for an entire day. Scalability Energy consumption will hinder the scalability issues of Bitcoin, however the other issue that arises with POW mining is that with the increase in cost associated with mining BTC it is less economical to mine Bitcoin. This would limit the distributed nodes (miners) globally and allow a larger percentage of control to the dominant mining pools / farms. This would lead to a more centralized blockchain, where they can change the rules of BTC as they please. The supply of Bitcoin is finite, capped at 21 million. Eventually (currently predicted for 2140) Bitcoin's supply will run out. Once this happens, miners will no longer receive rewards for completing blocks but instead will be given fees. The fees will be drastically high in relative terms, and people will stop using the blockchain. Also, if miners decide that this is uneconomical for them to process the transactions and use their computing power elsewhere the speed of transactions for Bitcoin will drastically slow down, rendering one of the fundamental values of a Bitcoin (speed) useless. Blue chip Companies This is more so for all cryptocurrencies, but Bitcoin in particular. It’s not a matter of if but a matter of when a blue-chip company such as Facebook, Amazon or Google decides to implement their own cryptocurrency. Another possibility is a potential ‘world coin’ which global governments will all agree on using, this may seem unrealistic but it is definitely not impossible and many benefits would arise from having such a currency. Quantum Computing Bitcoin is said to be Quantum resistant, on the whitepaper it mentions that: ‘To compensate for increasing hardware speed and varying interest in running nodes over time, the proof-of-work difficulty is determined by a moving average targeting an average number of blocks per hour. If they're generated too fast, the difficulty increases.’ This may seem quantum resistant but it is important to understand that the difficulty is changed every 10 minutes and this is more than enough time for QC to mine all of Bitcoin’s remaining coins. Bitcoin Bubble The last point of this section is to recognize that the Bitcoin bubble could pop loud enough to crash the market. Due to a whole lot of hype, and even more speculative and uneducated buyers, Bitcoin could face a peak in which a simple spark Ethereum What is Ethereum? Ethereum is an open source platform with the mission to build and inspire next-generation decentralized applications. In other words, the applications being built on the Ethereum network would have no middle men. Users are able to interact safely with social and financial systems to transact peer to peer, therefore opening a new realm of opportunity within decentralized development on specifically the exchange of value. Like the Bitcoin network exchanges Bitcoin, applications within the Ethereum network would exchange ETHER. Therefore, making the Ethereum network have its own digital currency or, cryptocurrency that these decentralized applications would run on. On the Ethereum network, developers are able to build these decentralized applications simply, within this seemingly complicated new technology. Think of it as Shopify or Volusion, these are centralized networks in which users/developers can build e-commerce stores more efficiently and cost effectively. Ethereum is similar in this aspect, the network was essentially created to assist and fuel the growth of decentralized blockchain applications within its network. Smart Contracts Now, what Ethereum is based on, is a thing called “Smart Contracts” Developers are extremely excited about this tool, a smart contract is similar to how it sounds, it’s a digital contract that self-executes… Think of it as a virtual vending machine. A smart contract is a digital contract between two people in which the technology or tool handles the management, performance, enforcement and payment of the agreement. The smart contract has its own digital bank account of ETHER and settles once the product is received or the service is completed therefore greatly improving the efficiency of data tracking, payment processing and user friendliness of each decentralized application. Let’s dive into an example Music The first age of the internet brought quite a bit of disruption to the music industry… Idk if you knew, but if you we’re a songwriter 25 years ago and produced a hit song that got a million singles you would acquire royalties of up to $50,000. Now if you were to produce a hit song that gets a million streams you don’t get $50,000, you get $45… Enough to cover the first round at the bar. In result, musicians are now finding other ways to produce revenue with their music. One being the utilization of a blockchain ecosystem like Ethereum. Music applications are now being built for musicians to reclaim their content, smart contracts are being implemented into the music itself, therefore the music protects the intellectual property rights of the artist. You want to listen to the song? It’s free… or maybe a few micro pennies to download. You want to put the song in your video or movie? Make it your ringtone? These each cost a different price and presented at the point of purchase would be its underlying IP rights for the use of that piece of music. Musicians are absolutely hyped about this because now, the song becomes a business. It’s out there on this platform marketing itself, protecting the rights of the author and because the song has a payment system; in the sense of a bank account, all of the money then flows back to the artist, and they control the industry rather than these powerful intermediaries. This concept could apply not only to just songwriters but any creator of content, from art, to inventions, to scientific discoveries or the work from independent journalists. There are endless industries in which people do not gain fair compensation in which the underlying technology of Ethereum could benefit in a big way. Other examples: · A smart contract can be created to pay a worker for every hour they work, they log their hours on the blockchain and then after verification the funds are instantly transferred to them · Buying goods internationally can be tracked and verified – reducing fraud. · Property buying can be facilitated through the contract · Every industry that has a contract in place will be able to use the blockchain of Ethereum It is also worth noting that Ethereum is also a lot quicker than Bitcoin, average block time being 15 seconds for Ethereum opposed to 10 minutes for Bitcoin. Personally, I am invested into both. If I HAD to choose, like I said it would be Ethereum simply because of where it is now in comparison to its potential as well as its very transparent, direct, opportunistic mission towards the hosting of decentralized blockchain applications.
We all know that Kin is a unique digital currency, that it has value and utility, and that the Kin Ecosystem, currently in development, is going to be big--very big. But let’s look back for a moment. In order to see the scope of what’s happening, and where we’re going, it might be useful to look back, at where we’ve been. Kin was started by the good folks at KIK Messenger. As Facebook and Google grew to gargantuan proportions, it became obvious to all that the old-school model of Advertisement Placement for monetization was becoming untenable for anyone other than the biggest and most entrenched of companies. Yes, the Facebooks and Googles of the world were doing fine with monetization via advertisements, and were busily scalping data from their users in a feeding frenzy to capitalize on the one asset they could sell… those users’ attention. While most users thought Facebook was designed to give the social media platform as the product, and that they themselves were the customers, the reality is far different. The truth is that the advertisers were the actual customers, and Facebook users were the actual product. Very much like the Matrix, isn’t it? We are fed a social media mental “pudding,” and in return we give Facebook hours and hours of our attention… which it then sells to the advertisers. Understandably, this realization came as a shock to those who were able to see and understand this revelation. Many users still do not grasp the reality of the situation, and are happily, mindlessly eating the pudding. Leaving aside the distasteful mental image this business model give us, it created a problem for up-and-coming, and smaller but established Social Media companies. The smaller SM operations were left in a bit of a financial quandary… advertisers were loathe to spend on smaller platforms, because the reach of the giant platforms was so large and all inclusive. The remainder were basically crumbs on the floor. From this basic problem… and the ensuing economic reality… came the idea for Kin. Monetization is a concept that no one really enjoys talking about. For most of us, we’ve come to accept that ads are a necessary evil that we pay attention to in order to receive content; at this point most of us simply grit our teeth and press on. No, I’m never ever going to buy that silly spray to cover up the smell of your poo, but go ahead, play the damned video ad… again. I digress. But what if there was a way to change the dynamic so that the SM platform user’s attention was no longer the product that got sold to monetize the operation? What if the user could sell his or her OWN attention, and be rewarded thusly? And what if there was a way to compensate developers and businesses who work in the ecosystem for this activity as well? What if the user actually became a rewarded participant in the engine that generated income? And was even able to generate income for themselves in the process? What if a system was designed to reward users, developers and investors, all at the same time? This is the basic premise of Kin. THE GENESIS of KIN In 2009, Kik Interactive was formed by a group of college students at the University of Waterloo, Canada, in order to create applications for mobile devices and smartphones. Soon thereafter, the Kik Messenger was launched. In it’s first fifteen days, Kik enrolled over one million users. Over the years, Kik has solidified itself as a strong niche player in the messaging app world. Initially, Kik monetized itself by placing advertisements, but realized over time that ad revenue might not be the best way to keep Kik in solvent. After several years of struggle, Kik embarked on an experiment and instituted a program called “Kik Points.” This program allowed Kik users to participate in a very basic and limited “earn and spend” program. The users would answer surveys, or watch videos, in order to “earn” Kik Points… which they could then spend on in-app programs like sticker packs or emojis. What the Kik folks saw was a very enthusiastic, large group of people working to earn, and then spend Kik Points, in a transactional rate and density that dwarfs that of every cryptocurrency, including Bitcoin. Kik then knew it was onto something. The team got to work, and after years of design, Kin was born. The Kin token was introduced into the crypto universe through an ICO (initial coin offering). The Basics of Kin Kin is the first cryptocurrency designed for mass-adoption and utility. It was engineered, specifically, to act as a currency to be used in millions of daily small and micro-transactions. In other words, it was a coin designed to be “spent” by the masses, not held by speculators. Kin is designed to reward people for using the coin. The Kin Rewards Engine (KRE) pays Kin to users and developers who contribute to the ecosystem. This does “inflate” the circulating supply of the coin, which in turn keeps the value of the individual coins in check, but in reality this is a core design component of Kin. Kin is designed to grow in value, but is designed to grow more slowly because of the extreme volatility witnessed in the growth of other coins. This kind of volatility would destroy Kin’s ability to be used as a true currency. The KRE serves two purposes, then; to reward those who boost the ecosystem thought their efforts, and to moderate the extreme peaks and valleys that have plagued cryptocurrency since the invention of Bitcoin. Bitcoin, for example, has morphed into a “store of wealth” rather than an actual usable currency. It is “deflationary” in nature; in other words, the scarcity of it is the sole driver of it’s value. The high cost of Bitcoin transactions, extreme value fluctuations and slow processing speed all hinder its use as a true currency. Additionally, why would someone spend Bitcoin when it may appreciate significantly in a short period of time? We all have heard the story about the two pizzas that were bought with 40,000 BTC… which would make those two pizzas worth over $300 million dollars today. And why would a merchant accept a currency that might lose a large percentage of it’s value very quickly? With a deflationary, speculative currency like Bitcoin, swings of plus or minus 30 to 50% within a few days are not uncommon. Kin, on the other hand, is designed to be used and spent by millions of users. It’s value will also grow significantly, but that growth will be relatively stable, with few of the huge peaks and valleys we’ve all seen in other cryptocurrencies. This is directly due to the large initial supply of Kin tokens (756 billion) the large maximum supply (10 trillion) and the design of the KRE. Most people with any crypto experience see that 10 trillion figure (the maximum circulating supply of Kin) to be a huge detriment at first blush. This is because they haven’t grasped the need for that many tokens. Looking at it from the perspective of other crypto, 10T coins is a ludicrous, astronomical number of coins. And with any other coin, it would bake no sense. But Kin is unique. It’s a true currency, not a store of wealth. It is designed to create value growth through usage, not through speculative buying, selling and holding. When Kin reaches mass adoption, the larger supply of coins will keep the price of the coin relatively stable while it grows in value, and will significantly reduce volatility. Notice that I did not say that the large supply will reduce appreciation; it won’t. That’s because while Kin is designed to be an inexpensive coin, and should never experience the volatility of Bitcoin, that doesn’t mean it won’t gain and accumulate value. It most definitely will. There are no limits to that appreciation, and those who buy Kin now, while the price is well below 1/100ths of a cent, will see significant return on their investment. That opportunity, as significant as it is, is not going to last much longer, and will not be available again. Kin is designed to go against the “normal” crypto path of pump and dump. It is not designed for arbitrage trading. Again, it is designed for utility, to be earned and spent, unlike most cryptocurrencies. Kin is designed to be an inflationary coin, not a deflationary coin. In that, I mean that Kin, through the KRE, injects liquidity into the ecosystem and does not appreciate solely due to its scarcity. The KRE rewards those who have significant positive effect on the ecosystem by awarding Kin to those entities or people. If you develop an app that captures people’s imaginations and is wildly successful (think PokemonGo), and you’re using Kin to monetize that app, that effect on the Kin Ecosystem will be greatly rewarded with equivalent Kin. By injecting this liquidity into the ecosystem, the KRE rewards those who make the ecosystem work. This also tends to have an inflationary effect that slows the growth of the coin into a manageable upward trajectory, versus a hyperbolic, exponential increase. Bitcoin, on the other hand, is deflationary… which means that no new BTC will be brought into the BTC system, and its value is based solely on that perceived scarcity. Since it has no mass adoption or real utility, and it’s value can rise and fall very quickly in large amounts. People buy Bitcoin for two reasons only today; speculation, and movement of fiat currencies into other cryptocurrencies. Speculation is the reason most people get into cryptocurrencies; with the advent of Kin, that will no longer be the case. Once Kin begins mass adoption, the majority of people in cryptocurrencies will be in Kin, and will be using, earning and spending Kin without buying the coin on an exchange. They will not be speculators, they will be users. Speculation has been the name of the crypto game in the past, of course, but that is about to change. Speculation on crypto will become the minority use case, not the majority. Bitcoin will always have a place, obviously, but can you buy groceries with it? Can you pay your electric bill? Can you go out to eat using Bitcoin? No. Bitcoin will always be the first cryptocurrency, but it is not a mass-adoptable currency with any single, strong use case in its current form. Kin was designed with Bitcoin’s failings in mind. The question comes up: Will Kin ever be a truly valuable coin, even with a ten trillion coin supply? The answer is an emphatic YES, it will. It will never be a short-term investment; there will be no 10x tomorrow, or 100x next week. But for the patient, the growth is coming. For the long term HODLer, the rewards will be significant indeed. Let me explain why the Kin Foundation, in designing Kin, chose to make the circulating supply 10 trillion Kin tokens. Why are there 10 Trillion Kin? To be a true currency with mass adoption, used by millions of people, there needs to be a large amount of Kin available. Otherwise, in very short order, people would be using Kin in decimals. It was decided that people would rather earn and spend multiples of Kin (i.e., 1000 Kin or 500 Kin) versus decimals of Kin (i.e., 0.0001 Kin or 0.0005 Kin), as is now necessary with Bitcoin, Ethereum and many others. Note that Kin can also be used in decimal divisions, so that in the future, the value of Kin will never be limited by an inability to be used by the decimal. In order to tamp down the extremely volatile nature of many cryptocurrencies, a larger circulating and available supply is necessary. A balance was found at 10T where the supply is large enough to meet the needs of the millions of users, but was small enough to not interfere with the growth of value in the coin. The Kin Rewards Engine (KRE) is key to this balance. By injecting Kin liquidity into the ecosystem, it rewards those who enable and grow the system, but it also minimizes volatility and keeps value growth down to a sustainable, non-hyperbolic/non-exponential growth curve. In this, it both creates opportunity and eases fears of volatility, for users, developers and merchants alike. There are currently 756 billion Kin tokens in circulation; most of the remainder are held by the Kin Foundation for their own use, and for rewarding those who enable the ecosystem via the KRE. The KRE is schedule to begin operation in Q3 2018. As the value of Kin appreciates, the number of Kin injected via the KRE will change, though the total value will not. For this reason, the KRE stands to be in operation, injecting liquidity, rewarding innovation and ecosystem enhancement and controlling volatility for many, many years to come. In the end, 10 trillion coins will not be enough to satisfy the long term needs and desires of the masses. If 50 million people are using Kin, this works out to only 200,000 Kin available per user. Most early adoptecapitalists in the ecosystem hold many, many more than that. This eventual scarcity will drive the value of Kin up significantly; I won’t prognosticate how high. There is, however, no limiting factor. I am very bullish at this prospect… because of the last item, number 5. Metcalfe's Law shows the correlation between the usage of a telecommunications system, the size of it’s network, and its value. As the number of users grow, this law shows us that there is a direct correlation between the supply, the number of transactions per day, and the approximate value of that coin. This law follows closely the movement of Bitcoin, Ethereum and other cryptocurrency systems, and shows that Kin will benefit from mass adoption and millions of daily transactions from tens or hundreds of millions of users. Without a large supply, this would not be possible. The design of Kin requires 10 Trillion coins to be available to execute the plan. And the plan is to allow users, developers and investors to all reap the benefits of a vibrant and growing ecosystem. When there are hundreds of millions of users in the ecosystem, the value of Kin will be greater than most people can imagine. It’s an exciting time, to be sure! So we’ve looked at why the circulating supply is important, and why it’s different from other currencies. Let’s look at the center of why this works, the KRE. The Kin Rewards Engine: How it will disrupt Social Media monetization How often do you log onto YouTube, or Facebook, or any other Social Media site, and click on a video you’d like to see? Before the video starts, though, you are forced to watch an advertisement… maybe it’s something you want to know more about, but more often than not, it isn’t. What if someone was reading your chat messages and saw you were talking about buying new running shoes, and there’s the ad for that, placed right in your face. Currently, the harvesting of your personal and private conversations is real and ongoing… putting that aside (and that’s a wholly different problem that Kin solves), someone is making money by scraping your personal data off of private communications and browsing histories, creating ads that target your interests, and then forcing you to watch those advertisements. A bot is reading your data, intuiting your thoughts, and someone profiting off of you. George Orwell’s “1984” called this person “Big Brother.” The KRE puts an end to this exploitative monetization model. The advertiser compensates you directly for viewing that advertisement, or answering that ad, or for playing that game. You can then spend your Kin on spend opportunities like branded Gift Cards from hundreds of big named merchants like Amazon, McDonalds, and Best Buy, or the user can take their Kin to an exchange and sell it for the fiat currency of their choice, US Dollars, Euros, GBP or Yen. You can use your Kin to buy music, to view curated content, or to tip a content provider. Paywalls for online journalism will become a thing of the past. The KRE will reward the developer or person or company who placed the ad and contributed to the ecosystem. The user is allowed to contribute financially to content they value; instead of having their personal information sold to an advertiser. The user also can benefit financially for their own intellectual efforts and content creation. Businesses and developers will be able to easily move their Kin to exchanges to trade for fiat currency; this enables them to pay bills and salaries, and reinvest in other parts of their business. This also creates liquidity for exchange trading, which is an important part of the Kin Ecosystem. In this way, the KRE will rewards users, developers and investors who participate by adding value to the ecosystem. It will be an “open” ecosystem, allowing people to choose their use of Kin, whether it be purchases within apps, soft monetization via giftcards, or hard monetization via exchange trading for fiat currency. It may also become an option for game fans, hobby coders and enthusiasts to produce a living income via Kin. Why are there two types of Kin? Initially, Kin was designed to exist on a single blockchain infrastructure, the Ethereum Blockchain. Kin’s ICO was performed on the ETH Blockchain, and all Kin currently available to buy on exchanges are ERC20 tokens, built around Ethereum. Last year, Ethereum experienced significant delays in transaction times because of a game that had been built on the platform, called “CryptoKitties.” This game became very popular very quickly with Crypto fans, and in their exuberance, their usage crashed the Ethereum platform. The Kin Foundation realized that Ethereum, in its current form, was neither fast enough, nor robust enough to support the millions of users of Kin. Something had to be done. The Foundation decided to seek another blockchain for Kin. Something faster, stronger, and secure enough for the millions of users of Kin to have near instantaneous, secure transactions, no matter what. A couple of solutions were found: The Stellar Lumens blockchain (XLM) was chosen because of it’s transaction speed, utility and robust nature, and the Orbs blockchain, which can stand as a replacement if there is a problem with Stellar down the road. But what about exchanges? Kin on Ethereum can expect to be on many exchanges, and that access to liquidity that is essential to the success of the project. Kin on Lumens or on Orbs wouldn’t have widespread access to exchanges. This was a dilemma, The solution was to create the first ever two-blockchain cryptocurrency. All Kin bought and sold on exchanges is on the Ethereum blockchain. Kin to be used in the KRE, the Kik app and the Kinit app, and in the remainder of the Kin Ecosystem, will be based on the Stellar Lumens blockchain. The two types of Kin will be functionally identical in value, and freely interchangeable between the two blockchains. Basically, users will earn and spend Kin (XLM) in the Kin Ecosytem, due to Stellar’s robust design and fast transaction speed, but when they wish to move their Kin to an exchange, their Kin (XLM) will be exchanged for Kin (ETH) on a 1 for 1 basis prior to moving the Kin to the exchange of their choice for trading purposes. In this way, the needs of all Kin users will be met. And should Stellar be someday unable to meet the demands of mass adoption, the Orbs Blockchain, and others, are available for later development. In any event, this dichotomy of Kin will be mostly transparent to the user, and will not impact the value or the utility of the currency. The Kin Foundation has developed this dual-blockchain technology so that Kin can become the first mass-adopted, widely used cryptocurrency in the world. So, how much will Kin be worth? This is a big question. Many naysayers don’t believe Kin will appreciate significantly because of the large supply. This is based on their past experiences with Cryptos that don’t have utility and are simply speculative in nature. That’s not the case with Kin. To be completely honest, no one knows how much appreciation Kin will experience, or when it will reach a certain value. Here’s what we do know: Kin is positioned to be the first mass-adoption cryptocurrency in the world. Today, less than six million people worldwide own or use and cryptocurrency… this is an astonishingly low number. Kik, the messaging app behind Kin, has over 300 million registered users. Kin will be introduced first on the Kik app; Kik app users will have their first opportunities to earn and spend Kin before the end of 2018. So basically, once Kin is introduced on the Kik app later this year, the number of people using cryptocurrency worldwide will multiply many times. In one day. Kik will introduce crypto to tens of millions of users by the end of the year. As mentioned before, Metcalfe’s Law shows the relationship between a cryptocurrency value and the usage or transactions conducted by that coin, and the circulating supply. With current supply at 756 billion, and assuming transaction numbers in the 10 million per day range, Kin should be trading at around $0.01 per coin. Remember, however, that the KRE will be raising the circulating supply, and it may take some time to get to 10 million transactions per day. The value of Kin hinges on these numbers. In this, the beginning of the ecosystem, there is no foolproof way to estimate the value of Kin on any certain day. That said, there is no limit to the value of the coin, over time. None. Not circulating supply, or market capitalization, or anything else. No limit. In a decade, after the ecosystem has matured and is operating solidly, Kin could be worth…. Well, you fill in your own numbers. I have my opinions, and they are not limited by the number of coins, the market cap or anything else designed into the coin. For me, it all hinges on mass adoption and usage. Partnerships Kin has inked a number of partnerships that are exciting and will stand the ecosystem well into the future. Two recently announced partnerships are UNITY and BLACKHAWK NETWORK. UNITY Unity is the ultimate game development platform. It brings together developers and technical assets in ways that allow the creation of some of the world’s most popular digital games. There were 5 billion downloads of games made with Unity in Q3 2016 alone. Today, games that were made with Unity exist on 2.5 billion unique mobile devices. App and game developers will be able to insert Kin’s “5 minute SDK” (Software development kit) into the code of their app or game, and be monetizing their efforts with Kin in minutes. This “plug and play” approach makes the Kin Ecosystem and its rewards accessible to almost every developer, without the expense, time and research of developing a cryptocurrency. It truly is bringing cryptocurrency to the masses. Simply plug the “5 minute SDK” into your code, launch/update it, and within minutes, you’re creating revenue. Your users will also have earn/spend opportunities, and your game/app usage will grow dramatically. No more sharing your revenue with the Apple App Store, or with Google Play Store. This is a huge increase in revenue for developers. BLACKHAWK Blackhawk Networks is the leading gift card supplier. Simply put, if you’ve ever used a gift card, it most probably came from Blackhawk Networks; that’s how deep their market goes. Over 250 different branded gift cards will be available for developers to choose from for their users to select, based on their personal knowledge of the demographic. Is your app a traffic or mapping app? Perhaps your users would appreciate being able to earn Kin to buy a Dunkin Donuts cash card. Because, coffee. Is your app a fitness app? Perhaps a Nike gift card is more appropriate. Is it a game geared towards younger users? There’s always McDonalds. A dating app? How about a card for flower delivery? You can see that the options are endless. And don’t forget, the user AND the developer can choose to move their kin to other apps for other options, or to large cryptocurrency exchanges, where they can exchange their Kin for dollars, euros, etc. In this way, the ecosystem is enhanced, the cycle begins again, and the KRE continues to reward. Big Investors One of the things that first got me excited about Kin was learning that Kik and Kin were heavily invested in by Tencent, the Chinese behemoth company behind WeChat. I travel extensively to China for my day job, and it was an incredible realization to see that most Chinese don’t carry paper currency anymore. Hundreds of millions of Chinese use WeChat every day to purchase everyday things like food, movies, clothing and the like. WeChat connects to the user’s bank account, and instantaneously debits the accounts when the user makes a purchase. Many retail outlets and vending machines in China no longer accept credit cards, and fiat purchases are dwindling in number. Tencent’s interest in Kin is significant. Imagine Kik, using Kin, evolving into something similar… with hundreds of millions of people using Kin to conduct a significant amount of the economic transactions in their daily life! The adoption and utility numbers are mind boggling. Additionally, there are a number of heavy hitters in the Crypto space investment community. Union Square Ventures (USV) is an investment fund that has bet heavily on Kik, and thereby, on Kin. Other investments from USV include CoinBase, Koko, DuckDuckGo, CodeAcademy, DuoLingo, Wattpad, SoundCloud, Foresquare, Kickstarter, Meetup, Etsy, Disqus, Tumblr, Twitter and Zynga. As you can see, Kin is extremely well positioned, and the monetization opportunity Kin represents for these companies is being explored. Wrapping it all up in a big red bow… The TL;DR version is this: Kin is poised to become the most used cryptocurrency in existence in 2018. As the KRE comes online, Kin is introduced to the Kik Community, the discrete Kin app (Kinit App) is released, the 5-minute SDK is finalized, more partnerships come online, more and major exchanges offer Kin trading, and word spreads, expect the value of Kin to begin growing significantly. Kin currently sits near the bottom of the top 100 cryptocurrencies in terms of market capitalization, but the expectation is that Kin will rise towards the top of the top 100 in short order. As the value increases, so does market cap. Don’t make the mistake of thinking market capitalization limits the growth of Kin in any way; it will be the usage and mass adoption that will grow the value. As the crypto market recovers from the last few months, look for Kin to accelerate its growth as more partnerships and exchanges are announced. Once the KRE begins operations, the value of Kin will grow more quickly. I do not expect Kin ever be worth less than it is right now. The future for Kin is extremely bright. The Kin Foundation has much work left to do, but they are up to the task. Stay informed, and make sure your portfolio has Kin in it!
Monero GUI 0.12.0.0 "Lithium Luna" Megathread - Download links, instructions for upgrading, guide on how to get started, and guides to resolve common issues (missing a transaction / zero balance, freezing / buggy GUI, transaction stuck as pending, and GUI using all bandwidth) (386 points, 833 comments)
Can we stop being assholes to newbies? (359 points, 94 comments)
With all this Monero "is less untraceable than previously thought" FUD, let's all remember that huge fucking bounty of $$$ for anyone who can trace the origin of one of the devs transactions.. (343 points, 131 comments)
311 points: deleted's comment in Did John McAfee just sell all of his Monero??
255 points: KnifeOfPi2's comment in Monero transactions are about to get 80% cheaper and faster.
237 points: live9free1or1die's comment in Banning privacy coins because of terrorism/drugs/laundering is like banning people from being allowed to have sex in privacy because pedophiles also like privacy.
Monero GUI 0.12.0.0 "Lithium Luna" Megathread - Download links, instructions for upgrading, guide on how to get started, and guides to resolve common issues (missing a transaction / zero balance, freezing / buggy GUI, transaction stuck as pending, and GUI using all bandwidth) (386 points, 833 comments)
Can we stop being assholes to newbies? (359 points, 94 comments)
With all this Monero "is less untraceable than previously thought" FUD, let's all remember that huge fucking bounty of $$$ for anyone who can trace the origin of one of the devs transactions.. (343 points, 131 comments)
311 points: deleted's comment in Did John McAfee just sell all of his Monero??
255 points: KnifeOfPi2's comment in Monero transactions are about to get 80% cheaper and faster.
237 points: live9free1or1die's comment in Banning privacy coins because of terrorism/drugs/laundering is like banning people from being allowed to have sex in privacy because pedophiles also like privacy.
Qtum Co Founder Patrick Dai | "3 o'clock no sleep blockchain" depth of sharing
In the industry known as the "first block of the block community," the three o'clock sleepless block chain group, brought together the heavyweight figures in the domestic block chain industry. On the second day of the New Year, starting at 11 am, the group members with a total market capitalization of about 1 trillion yuan, as the traditional world still rejoice in the Great Reign, Technology, valuation, investment and future, the main questions raised in the group were carefully answered and shared. The full text is as follows:
Q1: Stellar recently fierce in Silicon Valley, do you think the threat to eth big? Patrick Dai: ETH has become an ecosystem where the greatest risk comes from the risks inherent in one's own ecology but less from outside risks unless there is a tenfold increase in Ethereum's advanced ideas and technologies, giving it an opportunity to replace Ethereum , Otherwise it is a big threat to the nature, but not competing with the front of Ethereum, in other areas (outside the ICO) force, there are still a lot of business and investment opportunities.
Q2: What do you think about the millions of TPS that eos claims? Patrick Dai: Blockchain is not born for the TPS, if we need faster TPS, the existing banking system and Paypal and WeChat payment, is a better choice. In addition to the degree of decentralization and TPS is basically an irreconcilable conflict, many of the replacement of TPS is to sacrifice network to the degree of centralization to obtain, I personally think, simply in pursuit of higher TPS, but it makes no sense , Especially if the network after only a few dozen large nodes (this is not the early stages of the bank?), Then the high TPS, very often not significant.
TPS makes sense for specific things, but requires a compromise with the philosophy behind cryptocurrencies. Because traditional IT technology has been studied for distributed systems for decades, all algorithms based on BFT and various variants can achieve very high TPS, but their degree of centralization is relatively high. The average person in the network is Can not get the right of reciprocity If you can not participate in the supervision and verification of the network, in fact, the use of existing financial services are more than enough.
Question 3:Qtum Chain initial design of the core of what is the point? Qtum how to build their own ecology? Qtum globalization is good, even South Koreans like Qtum,landing strategies and methods in different states around the world how to look?**
Patrick Dai: The core of Qtum Blockchain design:
Security, security is the number one priority for cryptocurrency systems, with no foundation for security and sophisticated software as a back-up.
Qtum chain is basically compatible with bitcoin's UTXO and all BIPs, and is also compatible with EVM and EVM-based ecology.
Flexible, the biggest innovation in Qtum is based on bitcoin transaction model, which supports the implementation of smart contract, so that Ethereum's virtual machine can run on the bitcoin network. In addition, the current Qtum network is already in the POS phase, and around 3000 A full node. POS is more friendly to business applications. Through technical support, development tools, Community Roadshow investment hatching in the constant construction of the ecology of the Qtum Blockchain. The more important thing is landing on the local community developers and local project developers to achieve localization, the international team will also be a lot of help.
Question 4: Decentralized trading system, the future direction of development is?
Patrick Dai: to the center of the trading system of my research is not much to talk about a few specific cases, the earliest to the center of the trading system is based on the colorcoin mastercoin and counterparty transactions colorcoin on the back appeared on NXT and the BTS Decentralized trading systems, followed by the emergence of etherdelta (based on the smart contract trading system), from the experience above, several decentralized trading system experience, similar to the centralized trading system of high-frequency mobile Sex, a great gap. About decentralized trading system in the order matching and order synchronization, this can find some developers in this area, consult.
Q5: ipfs really can really decentralized web and app? Not a simple one? What is the point of going to a centralized app? Patrick Dai: IPFS specific technology to achieve no in-depth study, but read the design concept, the project itself also mentioned for several years, to the center of the web and app should be serverless service to developers, as long as the interface , Regardless of who behind the service to provide. Is not a simple token, depending on the ecology behind it, bitcoin is essentially just a piece of data in a bitcoin network, and decentralized apps make sense, but at the moment many of Dapp's really just an app + blockchain as a settlement layer . However, the future of blockchain and Dapp's future will transcend the existence of cryptocurrency and will become a social infrastructure: trust. Dapp has a lot of good direction: the game (props channels), content (movie music text), Internet of things, ID and so on.
Q6: Everyone has been saying that it is necessary to decentralize and intensify the high level of Dapp's certain degree of contradictions. However, we can not just stay at the stage where btc is used as a currency and eth only serves as a currency to be raised. Developing Dapps to address user needs, that is, the need to strike a balance between a purely decentralized utopia and user application world, Dpos is a solution for now, what do you think? How to grasp the degree of the two? Patrick Dai: Indeed, many Dapp is a pseudo-concept, but cryptocurrency itself has begun to penetrate into various places as the first successful application based on blockchain technology. My consideration for the future blockchain system is that there is enough decentralization at the bottom and the application layer can be neutralized. We need a trustless bottom plus an application layer that requires trust, on the one hand, a trustless premium (trust cost Lowest) + centralized premium (centralized), Dapp still has a lot to see in the future, such as gaming (virtual assets and channel changes) digital content (movie music) Internet of Things security and management of digital identities Areas of Pratt & Whitney Finance (Insurance-autonomous finance and micro-financial services, etc.). At present, many Dapp just use the characteristics of a blockchain, that is, the issuance and clearing of tokens. The blockchain has many other features that need to be discovered and discovered.
Q7: How do you think about the feasibility and security of cross-link technology? At present, you are optimistic about this project. In addition, how to ensure the trust and reliability of the link in the chain? Patrick Dai: I personally feel that the current cross-link area is still in its early stages, both in bitcoin and Ethereum network have limited processing power, and the process of continuous evolution, I personally feel that this one cross-chain is not yet mature enough, and from the solution Just need to point out whether cross-link at least at this stage is not just a need. On the Oracle side, this is a need, especially in the popularization of smart contracts, we need the blockchain can access external systems, in a sense, the current blockchain is an algorithm-driven self-consistent Closed system, the logic is pre-set. Through Oracle we can introduce external data sources to trigger the execution of the contract. There are many directions on how to solve the problem of credible data sources. One is a centralized approach, such as providing data sources by auditing companies and government departments. Another way to go to the center is to introduce games and mortgages. Punish fraud and reward honest data sources and establish a preferred positive feedback mechanism. Of course, there are many other solutions, there is a lot of community research, Microsoft also has a cryptolet project.
Q8: Ask a funny, 10 times eth, I have been curious about this issue, high-dimensional playing low-dimensional, non-dimensional entanglement. You must have thought about this 10 times the problem or possible direction method, want to hear you talk about the possibility of 10 times the direction of eth? Patrick Dai: 10 times ETH advanced concepts and technology iteration, ETH basically invest this thing is done through the ICO done the ultimate, 15 seconds to complete the investment process (DD TS Token release). It takes a few months, compared to the traditional melting of an angel, which is a difference of 15 seconds vs 3 months. So somehow, ETH becomes the largest investment and financing platform in the world. This is also the largest application of Ethereum, but the application of other smart contracts but did not develop.
From the cash point of view there are several directions:
distributed governance (refer to bitcoin 1M to 2M process and DAO processing);
privacy and application independence and loose coupling (refer to Parity theft);
Better flexibility (more types of virtual machines and a wider range of smart contract languages);
network layering and partitioning and data compression;
new consensus mechanisms (often requiring years of testing and practice) and more.
Q9: On the current blockchain + distributed computing issues, I think in the future if the dapp market can really make it indispensable based on the blockchain program to solve the calculation, storage, node acceleration and other issues. Currently I see several projects on distributed computing are based on the construction of Ethereum, are worrying about the performance, how do you think? Patrick Dai: Distributed Computing I did not study much, but its initial project should come from MaidSafe (https://maidsafe.net/), a nearly 10-year project, essentially Proof of Resource, and many others. The type of computation is actually not very suitable for distributed processing, requiring serial processing of data that is essentially not accelerated through distributed computing, and distributed computing may be able to handle similar game rendering and image rendering needs, but I do not know How big is a market? In addition, in distributed computing, it is also a problem how to use a common programming language to describe the computing task to be calculated and submit it accurately to the computing node. This one can consult the head of distributed computing projects.
Q10: Analysis of the following characteristics and advantages and disadvantages of the underlying chain: BTC / QTUM / ETH / EOS / NEO / ELASTOS?
BTC: theological narrative, community consensus, completed from carriage to car transition, belongs to the encrypted currency attributes, but also want to do a good job of cryptographic currency attributes, UTXO and POW and some standard types of transactions, as a guarantee Secure, reliable and secure cryptocurrency system, a point-to-point electronic cash system. But this is instead the most wild imagination of mankind, and what is more imaginative than creating money?
ETH: smart contract and Dapp platform, before the rise of ICO in March 2017, Ethereum did not show any special advantages, smart contract nor any sign of mass landing, an angel of manhood, promoted Ethereum However, smart contracts are still at an early stage and are still far away from large-scale applications. However, smart contracts should be time-tested in addition to cryptocurrency. Techno-Ethereum is essentially a Global account state machine, through the contract, the funds and data of the account to operate, compared to bitcoin more flexibility. But now also faces various technical challenges.
QTUM: The Bottom BTC-based UTXO Model (Secure and Reliable) A wide variety of virtual machines (X86 developed by Ethereum EVM + Qtum) can be supported through the account abstraction layer and future support for various programming languages (C ++ Rust) to write a smart contract, is essentially a layered design, taking into account security and flexibility. In addition the underlying is already POS, and there are more than 3500 full nodes.
Both EOS and NEO are evolving toward high TPS, but at this moment, I personally feel if I'm in the public chain or need to balance TPS and decentralize. If it is for business services is not needed.
ELASTOS is based on the bottom of NXT, to achieve a distributed computing, the recent lack of attention, but NXT as the earliest implementation of a POS, account-based blockchain system, many of the back of the system is very helpful (NEM, etc. ), NXT technically made a lot of contribution to the development of the blockchain industry, but neglected to manage and operate, early token holders are too concentrated.
Q11: At present more discussion is the public chain and the basic agreement, the application of technology in the future how to develop, what application scenarios faster landing? Patrick Dai: The current blockchain technology is still in its early stages of evolution, standing in the Internet era 20 years ago, when we can hardly imagine today can be called a mobile phone uber, the development of technology to give everyone a more rich diversity The possibility is the future. From an application perspective, the blockchain industry is indeed in the early stages of its application. Cryptocurrency is relative to the blockchain, similar to Email versus Internet, but the development behind the Internet goes far beyond emailing for information exchange, Then the future development of the blockchain will certainly not stop at cryptocurrencies born for value exchange. Cryptocurrency is just the beginning. From a scenario perspective, the biggest feature of blockchain technology is that it guarantees a trustless platform through a variety of technologies, a trust-free platform that reduces the cost of all business transactions.
Q12: First ask yourself a few questions: blockchain where the biggest investment opportunities? Patrick Dai: Based on the changes and disruptiveness brought by cryptocurrency, its wealth is created faster than the industrial revolution and the information revolution. From an investment point of view, I personally feel that there are several good directions:
Encrypted currency (cryptocurrency and token) in the underlying publicchain, which basically became the industry's first token-based blockchain technology with a close combination of blockchain
Technologies and specific application scenarios (the industry is in its infancy)
Breaking Down Scenarios Across Industries (Games, Entertainment, IoT, ID, Healthcare, Supply Chain)
Organizational Change Research, Economics, Think Tanks, Deep Media.
Q13: Is cryptocurrency popular at large scale? Patrick Dai: the development of technology with jumping, but difficult to retract, with the car, the car will never disappear, although the carriage also continued to exist for hundreds of years. The advent of cryptocurrency is not a coincidence, but is accompanied by the maturity of various internet infrastructures and the enlightenment of Cyber punk movement concept. It belongs to the fusion of technology and thought, not just to technological innovation. Personally, I think the cryptocurrency is unlikely to disappear, the widespread adoption of cryptocurrency depends on the applicability of the cryptocurrency system, including what rigid demands are being addressed, and for the moment, the greatest use is to provide people around the world an option: a very fluid Transparent, credible, secure global assets.
Q14: How to build a valuation model of blockchain platform? Patrick Dai: I have sent an article before. At present, this is a big problem in the industry. We do not have a set of valuation system to realize early warning and assessment of risks. What is the valuation of a project? Before writing something for your reference. http://www.gongxiangcj.com/posts/3895 "The number of nodes and cryptocurrency valuation model."
Q15: Who is Nakamoto? Patrick Dai: From what I learned, Nakamoto was a hardworking man with idealistic feelings. It should be done independently by one person. There are many anonymous tech bucks in IRC channel in 2011 and 2012, on which you can see Nakamoto's figure. In addition to the birth of BTC, there is also some relationship with a Chinese Wei Dai. Wei Dai, who wrote Bmoney's paper before, Zhong Zhongcong and Wei Dai also had some emails, and mentioned to Wei Dai that he has implemented Bmoney's part of cryptoCurrency, but in the second part of Bmoney there is actually a tentative idea about the contract. We can refer to Wei Dai's thesis at http://www.weidai.com/bmoney.txt and Qtum's idea Wei Dai has had some simple email exchanges, but Wei Dai's interest is no longer in the circle of cryptocurrencies.
Q16: In all the coins, which one will live the longest? Patrick Dai: simply look at cryptocurrencies, BTC completed a historic jump, but also a breakthrough from 0 to 1, followed by many cryptocurrencies are 1 to 1.1 and 1.1 to 1.2 changes, more than one billion US dollars in the amount of encrypted currency thoroughly It is unlikely that it will disappear because of the drive and governance of the community that the community will uphold even if the developer does not maintain it. However, there are indeed many crypto-currencies that will be eliminated and 95% of the projects should be gone after three years.
Q17: 18 years blockchain private market analysis, what kind of industry is better? Patrick Dai: Currently the industry needs to find other applications in addition to the cryptocurrency killer app, from the technical development point of view, I personally trust the concept of trustless Platform constantly landing and provide the underlying technology research and development and application scenarios.
Q18: Which industry has the largest total of all the industries in the blockchain? Patrick Dai: Cryptocurrency itself seems to be the biggest at this moment, and others feel that there are many opportunities for the gaming industry and for digital content (video and audio) and for financial services and the Internet of Things.
Q19: Want to hear the competition between the public chain and the public relations and cooperation, how to comment on the big brother? Patrick Dai: last year's growth in the industry, in essence, we are still eating BTC created by the combination of technology and ideas, creating a human species in the history of a new species premium, BTC has its historic significance. The groundbreaking idea it brought, gradually attracted the public's attention, but from a technical point of view, what BTC can do is limited, but it does solve its positioning. Technology is not good or bad, mainly to meet the needs. BTC technology to meet its point-to-point electronic cash system positioning and needs. We do not expect to build infinite applications in the BTC above, this is impossible. The public chain is indeed an open experimental field and a community-driven evolutionary community of interests. Its vitality is also very strong. However, at present, the problem is that we really need technological progress to further promote the scene. If only from the perspective of cryptocurrency, BTC LTC DogeCoin for a user, in essence, is the same experience, and the experience of Ethereum is not much different. The difference is, BTC and the US dollar experience is very different. I personally feel that the blockchain industry is an ecology. Whether it is serving one of the areas in the blockchain and ultimately building a blockchain together, it is essentially a collaborative evolution that builds a stronger consensus mechanism. Diversity provides the basis for the choice of consensus, and if there is only one technical direction, then the evolution of technology has become slow. In addition this is only a technical factor, but the blockchain system is not only as simple as technology, there is community community of interests behind.
Q20: What dimensions are the most important when evaluating the value of a blockchain project? What factors can be rejected one vote? The Beginning: The Essential Elements of the Encrypted Currency Valuation Model (I send some thoughts that I wrote before) As the first truly successful decentralized e-cash system, bitcoin became the anchor of value in the industry and By far the most centralized network, Bitcoin is designed as an electronic currency that is secure, secure, and has a very low threshold of participation in the early stages. It is early everyone can participate, and become a full node without any threshold, anyone can download bitcoin client, early mining in his computer, so in fact the realization of the low threshold of the financial services system, everyone With the freedom to join and exit, bitcoin clients have been rapidly evolving early, and if the client is a game, the Bitcoin client's distribution is a borderless game. In P2P network, a very important core element is full node. In a P2P network, the total number of nodes basically determines the technical value of this network.
Why do you say that? In the traditional database domain and distributed system, we study the consistency of the data, there are already many, all major companies have their own solutions, but few companies have tens of thousands of distributed system distributed nodes, So most of the research results are more suitable for some enterprises to solve the solution. For example, the Paxos algorithm proposed by Leslie Lamport in 1990 can achieve highly fault-tolerant requirements based on message passing. The latter algorithm is also widely used in google Chubby lock, and Chubby lock behind is widely used in Google's core design Bigtable, bigtable is to support a lot of Google's core business.
The realization of Bitcoin network is a fusion of technology and humanity. In a traditional distributed network, in a large company's network, each node in many cases is due to network reasons, dropping or sending wrong messages, instead of deliberately forging information for the sake of profit.
The realization of bitcoin is facing a more complicated network environment, not only a more complex network environment, but also a more complicated game of humanity. In the traditional distributed network, no one will consider the introduction of incentives to allow nodes to maintain data consistency, Nakamoto was the first person to do so, and through a resource that can not be monopolized (hash function computing power ) To ensure the effective allocation of accounting rights to avoid single-point ddos attacks on specific accounting nodes.
Bitcoin network to each distributed node in the network, the consistency of each time slice into a time interval consistency, if you look at the global currency bitcoin network, you will find each time slice and time, different The miners in calculating the different chains, in fact, is a bifurcated network, but in a 10-minute time interval, the probability that the data is modified is a Poisson distribution. The probability of the attacker's success is q, The growth of the block is exponentially declining. When the blockchain has six acknowledgments, the attacker's probability of success tends to be essentially zero.
If you are the full node in a Bitcoin network, then you have the largest and equal rights to the network, and you no longer have to trust third parties or give up your rights to others. At present, many other cryptocurrencies tend to be centralized. Many consensus mechanisms realize a fast transaction processing speed. In essence, they deprive participants of their equal rights and allow the network to return to a centralized network. But if we really need to hand over our rights in the blockchain network, banks may be a better choice than a lot of centralized blockchain systems.
At present there are about 13,000 full nodes in the bitcoin network. Due to the characteristics of the p2p network, it is very difficult to accurately count the total number of nodes in the network. These 13000 full nodes bear the accounting of the distribution and transaction of currency, and are also bits The foundation of the currency. Bitcoin is definitely a more distributed clearing network than Alipay, and unlike Alipay, Alipay is just a payment instrument that serves the renminbi system. Bitcoin's global clearing network also has its own currency system --- Bitcoin Compared to a bank, opening a bitcoin "dot" actually requires only one computer to run a full node. Therefore, the final service boundary of Bitcoin is borderless, and the service objects of banks and Alipay have boundaries.
Bitcoin achieved a breakthrough from 0 to 1 and completed the carriage-to-car transition (steam engine). In fact, crypto-currencies appeared behind us. In fact, we made some improvements on the basis of Nakamoto. Indeed, we have not Take the carriage again, essentially all the cryptocurrencies are in the car.
If we look at bitcoin from a software science perspective rather than a currency perspective, the various cryptocurrencies that appear later are essentially improvements and enhancements based on bitcoin's open-source software, which many teams make And upgrading, and not much difference, whether it is to change a mining algorithm, or add some total, a lot of bifurcation is done from 1 to 1.001 experiment, bitcoin from paper currency to electronic currency from 0 To 1 transition and fission.
Today, Bitcoin has the strongest network effect and the loudest brand effect. Although the technology iteration is very, very slow, some progress has been made one after another, but it can not be surpassed from the aspect of things development. , But no matter whether it will be surpassed, the emergence of bitcoin has its historical inevitability and it will certainly accomplish its historic mission. As the world's largest distributed clearing network and built-in monetary system in the future, as well as the anchor of the value in the parallel financial world in the blockchain and the boost of crazy humanity, we predict where its future highs will be Speaking of other factors aside, cryptocurrency has opened up a new era in which its market value should surpass that of the previous wave of the Internet.
Question 21: Blockchain whether the future is required to apply for a license to do? Patrick Dai: From the future development of cryptocurrency, this is an inevitable.
Question 22: The future of blockchain in the IP field? Patrick Dai: This still need to solve the chain and chain problems, as well as integration with the existing legal system. But purely virtual assets may not be needed, such as audio and video saved in the art and electronic formats of game props and electronic designs. But no matter what kind of industry, we have to think about, in addition to the token premium liquidity brought us by the blockchain, the blockchain really helped solve what problems?
Q23: Now the real consumption of blockchain project is not much, why do not wait for the project landing, re-vote? Tencent like buying now is not too late. Estimated seed round billion reasonable? Patrick Dai: revolutionary ideas and new technology has brought endless imagination mixed with human speculation and greed.
Q24: Want to know how to treat EOS Q1 beta? Patrick Dai: the specific progress did not pay attention to too many details, each project has its own position, as long as the solution to a certain area or the general needs, I personally feel that are very valuable. But we also look at the duration of the project is also to our own positioning, if the measurement of time is one day, it is trader, if it is a month, it is a short-term speculators, if it is one year, in the block chain industry is long-term investors If it is three to five years or ten years, it's the value discoverer and the leader in technological change.
Q25: What kind of impact can blockchain have on the economic vitality of the third and fourth tier cities today? When will have an impact? Patrick Dai: I do not know this.
Is anyone else freaked out by this whole blocksize debate? Does anyone else find themself often agreeing with *both* sides - depending on whichever argument you happen to be reading at the moment? And do we need some better algorithms and data structures?
Why do both sides of the debate seem “right” to me? I know, I know, a healthy debate is healthy and all - and maybe I'm just not used to the tumult and jostling which would be inevitable in a real live open major debate about something as vital as Bitcoin. And I really do agree with the starry-eyed idealists who say Bitcoin is vital. Imperfect as it may be, it certainly does seem to represent the first real chance we've had in the past few hundred years to try to steer our civilization and our planet away from the dead-ends and disasters which our government-issued debt-based currencies keep dragging us into. But this particular debate, about the blocksize, doesn't seem to be getting resolved at all. Pretty much every time I read one of the long-form major arguments contributed by Bitcoin "thinkers" who I've come to respect over the past few years, this weird thing happens: I usually end up finding myself nodding my head and agreeing with whatever particular piece I'm reading! But that should be impossible - because a lot of these people vehemently disagree! So how can both sides sound so convincing to me, simply depending on whichever piece I currently happen to be reading? Does anyone else feel this way? Or am I just a gullible idiot? Just Do It? When you first look at it or hear about it, increasing the size seems almost like a no-brainer: The "big-block" supporters say just increase the blocksize to 20 MB or 8 MB, or do some kind of scheduled or calculated regular increment which tries to take into account the capabilities of the infrastructure and the needs of the users. We do have the bandwidth and the memory to at least increase the blocksize now, they say - and we're probably gonna continue to have more bandwidth and memory in order to be able to keep increasing the blocksize for another couple decades - pretty much like everything else computer-based we've seen over the years (some of this stuff is called by names such as "Moore's Law"). On the other hand, whenever the "small-block" supporters warn about the utter catastrophe that a failed hard-fork would mean, I get totally freaked by their possible doomsday scenarios, which seem totally plausible and terrifying - so I end up feeling that the only way I'd want to go with a hard-fork would be if there was some pre-agreed "triggering" mechanism where the fork itself would only actually "switch on" and take effect provided that some "supermajority" of the network (of who? the miners? the full nodes?) had signaled (presumably via some kind of totally reliable p2p trustless software-based voting system?) that they do indeed "pre-agree" to actually adopt the pre-scheduled fork (and thereby avoid any possibility whatsoever of the precious blockchain somehow tragically splitting into two and pretty much killing this cryptocurrency off in its infancy). So in this "conservative" scenario, I'm talking about wanting at least 95% pre-adoption agreement - not the mere 75% which I recall some proposals call for, which seems like it could easily lead to a 75/25 blockchain split. But this time, with this long drawn-out blocksize debate, the core devs, and several other important voices who have become prominent opinion shapers over the past few years, can't seem to come to any real agreement on this. Weird split among the devs As far as I can see, there's this weird split: Gavin and Mike seem to be the only people among the devs who really want a major blocksize increase - and all the other devs seem to be vehemently against them. But then on the other hand, the users seem to be overwhelmingly in favor of a major increase. And there are meta-questions about governance, about about why this didn't come out as a BIP, and what the availability of Bitcoin XT means. And today or yesterday there was this really cool big-blockian exponential graph based on doubling the blocksize every two years for twenty years, reminding us of the pure mathematical fact that 210 is indeed about 1000 - but not really addressing any of the game-theoretic points raised by the small-blockians. So a lot of the users seem to like it, but when so few devs say anything positive about it, I worry: is this just yet more exponential chart porn? On the one hand, Gavin's and Mike's blocksize increase proposal initially seemed like a no-brainer to me. And on the other hand, all the other devs seem to be against them. Which is weird - not what I'd initially expected at all (but maybe I'm just a fool who's seduced by exponential chart porn?). Look, I don't mean to be rude to any of the core devs, and I don't want to come off like someone wearing a tinfoil hat - but it has to cross people's minds that the powers that be (the Fed and the other central banks and the governments that use their debt-issued money to run this world into a ditch) could very well be much more scared shitless than they're letting on. If we assume that the powers that be are using their usual playbook and tactics, then it could be worth looking at the book "Confessions of an Economic Hitman" by John Perkins, to get an idea of how they might try to attack Bitcoin. So, what I'm saying is, they do have a track record of sending in "experts" to try to derail projects and keep everyone enslaved to the Creature from Jekyll Island. I'm just saying. So, without getting ad hominem - let's just make sure that our ideas can really stand scrutiny on their own - as Nick Szabo says, we need to make sure there is "more computer science, less noise" in this debate. When Gavin Andresen first came out with the 20 MB thing - I sat back and tried to imagine if I could download 20 MB in 10 minutes (which seems to be one of the basic mathematical and technological constraints here - right?) I figured, "Yeah, I could download that" - even with my crappy internet connection. And I guess the telecoms might be nice enough to continue to double our bandwidth every two years for the next couple decades – if we ask them politely? On the other hand - I think we should be careful about entrusting the financial freedom of the world into the greedy hands of the telecoms companies - given all their shady shenanigans over the past few years in many countries. After decades of the MPAA and the FBI trying to chip away at BitTorrent, lately PirateBay has been hard to access. I would say it's quite likely that certain persons at institutions like JPMorgan and Goldman Sachs and the Fed might be very, very motivated to see Bitcoin fail - so we shouldn't be too sure about scaling plans which depend on the willingness of companies Verizon and AT&T to double our bandwith every two years. Maybe the real important hardware buildout challenge for a company like 21 (and its allies such as Qualcomm) to take on now would not be "a miner in every toaster" but rather "Google Fiber Download and Upload Speeds in every Country, including China". I think I've read all the major stuff on the blocksize debate from Gavin Andresen, Mike Hearn, Greg Maxwell, Peter Todd, Adam Back, and Jeff Garzick and several other major contributors - and, oddly enough, all their arguments seem reasonable - heck even Luke-Jr seems reasonable to me on the blocksize debate, and I always thought he was a whackjob overly influenced by superstition and numerology - and now today I'm reading the article by Bram Cohen - the inventor of BitTorrent - and I find myself agreeing with him too! I say to myself: What's going on with me? How can I possibly agree with all of these guys, if they all have such vehemently opposing viewpoints? I mean, think back to the glory days of a couple of years ago, when all we were hearing was how this amazing unprecedented grassroots innovation called Bitcoin was going to benefit everyone from all walks of life, all around the world:
wealthy individuals trying to preserve and transport their wealth across space and across time
iPhone and Android users who want to buy a latte on their smartphone at Starbucks
Venezuelans and Argentinians and Cypriots and Russian oligarchs and Greeks and anyone else whose state-backed currency sucks
unbanked Africans who will someday be texting around money via SMS messages on their cellphones
online content providers who will finally be able to get paid via micropayments
smart contracts and stock brokering and lawyering and land deeding and the refrigerator calling out to order more milk and distributed anonymous corporations (DACs) automatically negotiating and adjusting driverless taxicab fares in the Uber-future of the Internet of Things
...basically the entire human race transacting everything into the blockchain. (Although let me say that I think that people's focus on ideas like driverless cabs creating realtime fare markets based on supply and demand seems to be setting our sights a bit low as far as Bitcoin's abilities to correct the financial world's capital-misallocation problems which seem to have been made possible by infinite debt-based fiat. I would have hoped that a Bitcoin-based economy would solve much more noble, much more urgent capital-allocation problems than driverless taxicabs creating fare markets or refrigerators ordering milk on the internet of things. I was thinking more along the lines that Bitcoin would finally strangle dead-end debt-based deadly-toxic energy industries like fossil fuels and let profitable clean energy industries like Thorium LFTRs take over - but that's another topic. :=) Paradoxes in the blocksize debate Let me summarize the major paradoxes I see here: (1) Regarding the people (the majority of the core devs) who are against a blocksize increase: Well, the small-blocks arguments do seem kinda weird, and certainly not very "populist", in the sense that: When on earth have end-users ever heard of a computer technology whose capacity didn't grow pretty much exponentially year-on-year? All the cool new technology we've had - from hard drives to RAM to bandwidth - started out pathetically tiny and grew to unimaginably huge over the past few decades - and all our software has in turn gotten massively powerful and big and complex (sometimes bloated) to take advantage of the enormous new capacity available. But now suddenly, for the first time in the history of technology, we seem to have a majority of the devs, on a major p2p project - saying: "Let's not scale the system up. It could be dangerous. It might break the whole system (if the hard-fork fails)." I don't know, maybe I'm missing something here, maybe someone else could enlighten me, but I don't think I've ever seen this sort of thing happen in the last few decades of the history of technology - devs arguing against scaling up p2p technology to take advantage of expected growth in infrastructure capacity. (2) But... on the other hand... the dire warnings of the small-blockians about what could happen if a hard-fork were to fail - wow, they do seem really dire! And these guys are pretty much all heavyweight, experienced programmers and/or game theorists and/or p2p open-source project managers. I must say, that nearly all of the long-form arguments I've read - as well as many, many of the shorter comments I've read from many users in the threads, whose names I at least have come to more-or-less recognize over the past few months and years on reddit and bitcointalk - have been amazingly impressive in their ability to analyze all aspects of the lifecycle and management of open-source software projects, bringing up lots of serious points which I could never have come up with, and which seem to come from long experience with programming and project management - as well as dealing with economics and human nature (eg, greed - the game-theory stuff). So a lot of really smart and experienced people with major expertise in various areas ranging from programming to management to game theory to politics to economics have been making some serious, mature, compelling arguments. But, as I've been saying, the only problem to me is: in many of these cases, these arguments are vehemently in opposition to each other! So I find myself agreeing with pretty much all of them, one by one - which means the end result is just a giant contradiction. I mean, today we have Bram Cohen, the inventor of BitTorrent, arguing (quite cogently and convincingly to me), that it would be dangerous to increase the blocksize. And this seems to be a guy who would know a few things about scaling out a massive global p2p network - since the protocol which he invented, BitTorrent, is now apparently responsible for like a third of the traffic on the internet (and this despite the long-term concerted efforts of major evil players such as the MPAA and the FBI to shut the whole thing down). Was the BitTorrent analogy too "glib"? By the way - I would like to go on a slight tangent here and say that one of the main reasons why I felt so "comfortable" jumping on the Bitcoin train back a few years ago, when I first heard about it and got into it, was the whole rough analogy I saw with BitTorrent. I remembered the perhaps paradoxical fact that when a torrent is more popular (eg, a major movie release that just came out last week), then it actually becomes faster to download. More people want it, so more people have a few pieces of it, so more people are able to get it from each other. A kind of self-correcting economic feedback loop, where more demand directly leads to more supply. (BitTorrent manages to pull this off by essentially adding a certain structure to the file being shared, so that it's not simply like an append-only list of 1 MB blocks, but rather more like an random-access or indexed array of 1 MB chunks. Say you're downloading a film which is 700 MB. As soon as your "client" program has downloaded a single 1-MB chunk - say chunk #99 - your "client" program instantly turns into a "server" program as well - offering that chunk #99 to other clients. From my simplistic understanding, I believe the Bitcoin protocol does something similar, to provide a p2p architecture. Hence my - perhaps naïve - assumption that Bitcoin already had the right algorithms / architecture / data structure to scale.) The efficiency of the BitTorrent network seemed to jive with that "network law" (Metcalfe's Law?) about fax machines. This law states that the more fax machines there are, the more valuable the network of fax machines becomes. Or the value of the network grows on the order of the square of the number of nodes. This is in contrast with other technology like cars, where the more you have, the worse things get. The more cars there are, the more traffic jams you have, so things start going downhill. I guess this is because highway space is limited - after all, we can't pave over the entire countryside, and we never did get those flying cars we were promised, as David Graeber laments in a recent essay in The Baffler magazine :-) And regarding the "stress test" supposedly happening right now in the middle of this ongoing blocksize debate, I don't know what worries me more: the fact that it apparently is taking only $5,000 to do a simple kind of DoS on the blockchain - or the fact that there are a few rumors swirling around saying that the unknown company doing the stress test shares the same physical mailing address with a "scam" company? Or maybe we should just be worried that so much of this debate is happening on a handful of forums which are controlled by some guy named theymos who's already engaged in some pretty "contentious" or "controversial" behavior like blowing a million dollars on writing forum software (I guess he never heard that reddit.com software is open-source)? So I worry that the great promise of "decentralization" might be more fragile than we originally thought. Scaling Anyways, back to Metcalfe's Law: with virtual stuff, like torrents and fax machines, the more the merrier. The more people downloading a given movie, the faster it arrives - and the more people own fax machines, the more valuable the overall fax network. So I kindof (naïvely?) assumed that Bitcoin, being "virtual" and p2p, would somehow scale up the same magical way BitTorrrent did. I just figured that more people using it would somehow automatically make it stronger and faster. But now a lot of devs have started talking in terms of the old "scarcity" paradigm, talking about blockspace being a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" - which seems kinda scary, and antithetical to much of the earlier rhetoric we heard about Bitcoin (the stuff about supporting our favorite creators with micropayments, and the stuff about Africans using SMS to send around payments). Look, when some asshole is in line in front of you at the cash register and he's holding up the line so they can run his credit card to buy a bag of Cheeto's, we tend to get pissed off at the guy - clogging up our expensive global electronic payment infrastructure to make a two-dollar purchase. And that's on a fairly efficient centralized system - and presumably after a year or so, VISA and the guy's bank can delete or compress the transaction in their SQL databases. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but if some guy buys a coffee on the blockchain, or if somebody pays an online artist $1.99 for their work - then that transaction, a few bytes or so, has to live on the blockchain forever? Or is there some "pruning" thing that gets rid of it after a while? And this could lead to another question: Viewed from the perspective of double-entry bookkeeping, is the blockchain "world-wide ledger" more like the "balance sheet" part of accounting, i.e. a snapshot showing current assets and liabilities? Or is it more like the "cash flow" part of accounting, i.e. a journal showing historical revenues and expenses? When I think of thousands of machines around the globe having to lug around multiple identical copies of a multi-gigabyte file containing some asshole's coffee purchase forever and ever... I feel like I'm ideologically drifting in one direction (where I'd end up also being against really cool stuff like online micropayments and Africans banking via SMS)... so I don't want to go there. But on the other hand, when really experienced and battle-tested veterans with major experience in the world of open-souce programming and project management (the "small-blockians") warn of the catastrophic consequences of a possible failed hard-fork, I get freaked out and I wonder if Bitcoin really was destined to be a settlement layer for big transactions. Could the original programmer(s) possibly weigh in? And I don't mean to appeal to authority - but heck, where the hell is Satoshi Nakamoto in all this? I do understand that he/she/they would want to maintain absolute anonymity - but on the other hand, I assume SN wants Bitcoin to succeed (both for the future of humanity - or at least for all the bitcoins SN allegedly holds :-) - and I understand there is a way that SN can cryptographically sign a message - and I understand that as the original developer of Bitcoin, SN had some very specific opinions about the blocksize... So I'm kinda wondering of Satoshi could weigh in from time to time. Just to help out a bit. I'm not saying "Show us a sign" like a deity or something - but damn it sure would be fascinating and possibly very helpful if Satoshi gave us his/hetheir 2 satoshis worth at this really confusing juncture. Are we using our capacity wisely? I'm not a programming or game-theory whiz, I'm just a casual user who has tried to keep up with technology over the years. It just seems weird to me that here we have this massive supercomputer (500 times more powerful than the all the supercomputers in the world combined) doing fairly straightforward "embarassingly parallel" number-crunching operations to secure a p2p world-wide ledger called the blockchain to keep track of a measly 2.1 quadrillion tokens spread out among a few billion addresses - and a couple of years ago you had people like Rick Falkvinge saying the blockchain would someday be supporting multi-million-dollar letters of credit for international trade and you had people like Andreas Antonopoulos saying the blockchain would someday allow billions of "unbanked" people to send remittances around the village or around the world dirt-cheap - and now suddenly in June 2015 we're talking about blockspace as a "scarce resource" and talking about "fee markets" and partially centralized, corporate-sponsored "Level 2" vaporware like Lightning Network and some mysterious company is "stess testing" or "DoS-ing" the system by throwing away a measly $5,000 and suddenly it sounds like the whole system could eventually head right back into PayPal and Western Union territory again, in terms of expensive fees. When I got into Bitcoin, I really was heavily influenced by vague analogies with BitTorrent: I figured everyone would just have tiny little like utorrent-type program running on their machine (ie, Bitcoin-QT or Armory or Mycelium etc.). I figured that just like anyone can host a their own blog or webserver, anyone would be able to host their own bank. Yeah, Google and and Mozilla and Twitter and Facebook and WhatsApp did come along and build stuff on top of TCP/IP, so I did expect a bunch of companies to build layers on top of the Bitcoin protocol as well. But I still figured the basic unit of bitcoin client software powering the overall system would be small and personal and affordable and p2p - like a bittorrent client - or at the most, like a cheap server hosting a blog or email server. And I figured there would be a way at the software level, at the architecture level, at the algorithmic level, at the data structure level - to let the thing scale - if not infinitely, at least fairly massively and gracefully - the same way the BitTorrent network has. Of course, I do also understand that with BitTorrent, you're sharing a read-only object (eg, a movie) - whereas with Bitcoin, you're achieving distributed trustless consensus and appending it to a write-only (or append-only) database. So I do understand that the problem which BitTorrent solves is much simpler than the problem which Bitcoin sets out to solve. But still, it seems that there's got to be a way to make this thing scale. It's p2p and it's got 500 times more computing power than all the supercomputers in the world combined - and so many brilliant and motivated and inspired people want this thing to succeed! And Bitcoin could be our civilization's last chance to steer away from the oncoming debt-based ditch of disaster we seem to be driving into! It just seems that Bitcoin has got to be able to scale somehow - and all these smart people working together should be able to come up with a solution which pretty much everyone can agree - in advance - will work. Right? Right? A (probably irrelevant) tangent on algorithms and architecture and data structures I'll finally weigh with my personal perspective - although I might be biased due to my background (which is more on the theoretical side of computer science). My own modest - or perhaps radical - suggestion would be to ask whether we're really looking at all the best possible algorithms and architectures and data structures out there. From this perspective, I sometimes worry that the overwhelming majority of the great minds working on the programming and game-theory stuff might come from a rather specific, shall we say "von Neumann" or "procedural" or "imperative" school of programming (ie, C and Python and Java programmers). It seems strange to me that such a cutting-edge and important computer project would have so little participation from the great minds at the other end of the spectrum of programming paradigms - namely, the "functional" and "declarative" and "algebraic" (and co-algebraic!) worlds. For example, I was struck in particular by statements I've seen here and there (which seemed rather hubristic or lackadaisical to me - for something as important as Bitcoin), that the specification of Bitcoin and the blockchain doesn't really exist in any form other than the reference implementation(s) (in procedural languages such as C or Python?). Curry-Howard anyone? I mean, many computer scientists are aware of the Curry-Howard isomorophism, which basically says that the relationship between a theorem and its proof is equivalent to the relationship between a specification and its implementation. In other words, there is a long tradition in mathematics (and in computer programming) of:
separating the compact (and easy-to-check) statement of a theorem from the messy (and hard-to-check) details of its proof(s);
separating the specification of a system from its implementation(s); and
being able to prove that an implementation does indeed satisfy its specification.
And it's not exactly "turtles all the way down" either: a specification is generally simple and compact enough that a good programmer can usually simply visually inspect it to determine if it is indeed "correct" - something which is very difficult, if not impossible, to do with a program written in a procedural, implementation-oriented language such as C or Python or Java. So I worry that we've got this tradition, from the open-source github C/Java programming tradition, of never actually writing our "specification", and only writing the "implementation". In mission-critical military-grade programming projects (which often use languages like Ada or Maude) this is simply not allowed. It would seem that a project as mission-critical as Bitcoin - which could literally be crucial for humanity's continued survival - should also use this kind of military-grade software development approach. And I'm not saying rewrite the implementations in these kind of theoretical languages. But it might be helpful if the C/Python/Java programmers in the Bitcoin imperative programming world could build some bridges to the Maude/Haskell/ML programmers of the functional and algebraic programming worlds to see if any kind of useful cross-pollination might take place - between specifications and implementations. For example, the JavaFAN formal analyzer for multi-threaded Java programs (developed using tools based on the Maude language) was applied to the Remote Agent AI program aboard NASA's Deep Space 1 shuttle, written in Java - and it took only a few minutes using formal mathematical reasoning to detect a potential deadlock which would have occurred years later during the space mission when the damn spacecraft was already way out around Pluto. And "the Maude-NRL (Naval Research Laboratory) Protocol Analyzer (Maude-NPA) is a tool used to provide security proofs of cryptographic protocols and to search for protocol flaws and cryptosystem attacks." These are open-source formal reasoning tools developed by DARPA and used by NASA and the US Navy to ensure that program implementations satisfy their specifications. It would be great if some of the people involved in these kinds of projects could contribute to help ensure the security and scalability of Bitcoin. But there is a wide abyss between the kinds of programmers who use languages like Maude and the kinds of programmers who use languages like C/Python/Java - and it can be really hard to get the two worlds to meet. There is a bit of rapprochement between these language communities in languages which might be considered as being somewhere in the middle, such as Haskell and ML. I just worry that Bitcoin might be turning into being an exclusively C/Python/Java project (with the algorithms and practitioners traditionally of that community), when it could be more advantageous if it also had some people from the functional and algebraic-specification and program-verification community involved as well. The thing is, though: the theoretical practitioners are big on "semantics" - I've heard them say stuff like "Yes but a C / C++ program has no easily identifiable semantics". So to get them involved, you really have to first be able to talk about what your program does (specification) - before proceeding to describe how it does it (implementation). And writing high-level specifications is typically very hard using the syntax and semantics of languages like C and Java and Python - whereas specs are fairly easy to write in Maude - and not only that, they're executable, and you state and verify properties about them - which provides for the kind of debate Nick Szabo was advocating ("more computer science, less noise"). Imagine if we had an executable algebraic specification of Bitcoin in Maude, where we could formally reason about and verify certain crucial game-theoretical properties - rather than merely hand-waving and arguing and deploying and praying. And so in the theoretical programming community you've got major research on various logics such as Girard's Linear Logic (which is resource-conscious) and Bruni and Montanari's Tile Logic (which enables "pasting" bigger systems together from smaller ones in space and time), and executable algebraic specification languages such as Meseguer's Maude (which would be perfect for game theory modeling, with its functional modules for specifying the deterministic parts of systems and its system modules for specifiying non-deterministic parts of systems, and its parameterized skeletons for sketching out the typical architectures of mobile systems, and its formal reasoning and verification tools and libraries which have been specifically applied to testing and breaking - and fixing - cryptographic protocols). And somewhat closer to the practical hands-on world, you've got stuff like Google's MapReduce and lots of Big Data database languages developed by Google as well. And yet here we are with a mempool growing dangerously big for RAM on a single machine, and a 20-GB append-only list as our database - and not much debate on practical results from Google's Big Data databases. (And by the way: maybe I'm totally ignorant for asking this, but I'll ask anyways: why the hell does the mempool have to stay in RAM? Couldn't it work just as well if it were stored temporarily on the hard drive?) And you've got CalvinDB out of Yale which apparently provides an ACID layer on top of a massively distributed database. Look, I'm just an armchair follower cheering on these projects. I can barely manage to write a query in SQL, or read through a C or Python or Java program. But I would argue two points here: (1) these languages may be too low-level and "non-formal" for writing and modeling and formally reasoning about and proving properties of mission-critical specifications - and (2) there seem to be some Big Data tools already deployed by institutions such as Google and Yale which support global petabyte-size databases on commodity boxes with nice properties such as near-real-time and ACID - and I sometimes worry that the "core devs" might be failing to review the literature (and reach out to fellow programmers) out there to see if there might be some formal program-verification and practical Big Data tools out there which could be applied to coming up with rock-solid, 100% consensus proposals to handle an issue such as blocksize scaling, which seems to have become much more intractable than many people might have expected. I mean, the protocol solved the hard stuff: the elliptical-curve stuff and the Byzantine General stuff. How the heck can we be falling down on the comparatively "easier" stuff - like scaling the blocksize? It just seems like defeatism to say "Well, the blockchain is already 20-30 GB and it's gonna be 20-30 TB ten years from now - and we need 10 Mbs bandwidth now and 10,000 Mbs bandwidth 20 years from - assuming the evil Verizon and AT&T actually give us that - so let's just become a settlement platform and give up on buying coffee or banking the unbanked or doing micropayments, and let's push all that stuff into some corporate-controlled vaporware without even a whitepaper yet." So you've got Peter Todd doing some possibly brilliant theorizing and extrapolating on the idea of "treechains" - there is a Let's Talk Bitcoin podcast from about a year ago where he sketches the rough outlines of this idea out in a very inspiring, high-level way - although the specifics have yet to be hammered out. And we've got Blockstream also doing some hopeful hand-waving about the Lightning Network. Things like Peter Todd's treechains - which may be similar to the spark in some devs' eyes called Lightning Network - are examples of the kind of algorithm or architecture which might manage to harness the massive computing power of miners and nodes in such a way that certain kinds of massive and graceful scaling become possible. It just seems like a kindof tiny dev community working on this stuff. Being a C or Python or Java programmer should not be a pre-req to being able to help contribute to the specification (and formal reasoning and program verification) for Bitcoin and the blockchain. XML and UML are crap modeling and specification languages, and C and Java and Python are even worse (as specification languages - although as implementation languages, they are of course fine). But there are serious modeling and specification languages out there, and they could be very helpful at times like this - where what we're dealing with is questions of modeling and specification (ie, "needs and requirements"). One just doesn't often see the practical, hands-on world of open-source github implementation-level programmers and the academic, theoretical world of specification-level programmers meeting very often. I wish there were some way to get these two worlds to collaborate on Bitcoin. Maybe a good first step to reach out to the theoretical people would be to provide a modular executable algebraic specification of the Bitcoin protocol in a recognized, military/NASA-grade specification language such as Maude - because that's something the theoretical community can actually wrap their heads around, whereas it's very hard to get them to pay attention to something written only as a C / Python / Java implementation (without an accompanying specification in a formal language). They can't check whether the program does what it's supposed to do - if you don't provide a formal mathematical definition of what the program is supposed to do. Specification : Implementation :: Theorem : Proof You have to remember: the theoretical community is very aware of the Curry-Howard isomorphism. Just like it would be hard to get a mathematician's attention by merely showing them a proof without telling also telling them what theorem the proof is proving - by the same token, it's hard to get the attention of a theoretical computer scientist by merely showing them an implementation without showing them the specification that it implements. Bitcoin is currently confronted with a mathematical or "computer science" problem: how to secure the network while getting high enough transactional throughput, while staying within the limited RAM, bandwidth and hard drive space limitations of current and future infrastructure. The problem only becomes a political and economic problem if we give up on trying to solve it as a mathematical and "theoretical computer science" problem. There should be a plethora of whitepapers out now proposing algorithmic solutions to these scaling issues. Remember, all we have to do is apply the Byzantine General consensus-reaching procedure to a worldwide database which shuffles 2.1 quadrillion tokens among a few billion addresses. The 21 company has emphatically pointed out that racing to compute a hash to add a block is an "embarrassingly parallel" problem - very easy to decompose among cheap, fault-prone, commodity boxes, and recompose into an overall solution - along the lines of Google's highly successful MapReduce. I guess what I'm really saying is (and I don't mean to be rude here), is that C and Python and Java programmers might not be the best qualified people to develop and formally prove the correctness of (note I do not say: "test", I say "formally prove the correctness of") these kinds of algorithms. I really believe in the importance of getting the algorithms and architectures right - look at Google Search itself, it uses some pretty brilliant algorithms and architectures (eg, MapReduce, Paxos) which enable it to achieve amazing performance - on pretty crappy commodity hardware. And look at BitTorrent, which is truly p2p, where more demand leads to more supply. So, in this vein, I will close this lengthy rant with an oddly specific link - which may or may not be able to make some interesting contributions to finding suitable algorithms, architectures and data structures which might help Bitcoin scale massively. I have no idea if this link could be helpful - but given the near-total lack of people from the Haskell and ML and functional worlds in these Bitcoin specification debates, I thought I'd be remiss if I didn't throw this out - just in case there might be something here which could help us channel the massive computing power of the Bitcoin network in such a way as to enable us simply sidestep this kind of desperate debate where both sides seem right because the other side seems wrong. https://personal.cis.strath.ac.uk/neil.ghani/papers/ghani-calco07 The above paper is about "higher dimensional trees". It uses a bit of category theory (not a whole lot) and a bit of Haskell (again not a lot - just a simple data structure called a Rose tree, which has a wikipedia page) to develop a very expressive and efficient data structure which generalizes from lists to trees to higher dimensions. I have no idea if this kind of data structure could be applicable to the current scaling mess we apparently are getting bogged down in - I don't have the game-theory skills to figure it out. I just thought that since the blockchain is like a list, and since there are some tree-like structures which have been grafted on for efficiency (eg Merkle trees) and since many of the futuristic scaling proposals seem to also involve generalizing from list-like structures (eg, the blockchain) to tree-like structures (eg, side-chains and tree-chains)... well, who knows, there might be some nugget of algorithmic or architectural or data-structure inspiration there. So... TL;DR: (1) I'm freaked out that this blocksize debate has splintered the community so badly and dragged on so long, with no resolution in sight, and both sides seeming so right (because the other side seems so wrong). (2) I think Bitcoin could gain immensely by using high-level formal, algebraic and co-algebraic program specification and verification languages (such as Maude including Maude-NPA, Mobile Maude parameterized skeletons, etc.) to specify (and possibly also, to some degree, verify) what Bitcoin does - before translating to low-level implementation languages such as C and Python and Java saying how Bitcoin does it. This would help to communicate and reason about programs with much more mathematical certitude - and possibly obviate the need for many political and economic tradeoffs which currently seem dismally inevitable - and possibly widen the collaboration on this project. (3) I wonder if there are some Big Data approaches out there (eg, along the lines of Google's MapReduce and BigTable, or Yale's CalvinDB), which could be implemented to allow Bitcoin to scale massively and painlessly - and to satisfy all stakeholders, ranging from millionaires to micropayments, coffee drinkers to the great "unbanked".
Digital money that’s instant, private, and free from bank fees. Download our official wallet app and start using Bitcoin today. Read news, start mining, and buy BTC or BCH. Blockchain.com is the most popular place to securely buy, store, and trade Bitcoin, Ethereum, and other top cryptocurrencies. @sipa yes, I know this, but we are exploring a "torrent-like" alternative way to download the blockchain - how is it possible to download a 12GB movie without corruptions of the data, but not 12GB of blockchain in the same amount of time and CPU usage? Surely if someone has the checksum of the data, and trusts this checksum, then this should be ... GetBitcoinBlockchain.com - service that help to download Bitcoin blockchain fast via torrent< put ads. Here is located actual, always up-to-date, Bitcoin blockchain that can be fast downloaded via torrent. In which cases you need to download Bitcoin blockchain? when you need to get full Bitcoin node ... Bitcoin Core is a community-driven free software project, released under the MIT license. Verify release signatures Download torrent Source code Show version history Bitcoin Core Release Signing Keys v0.8.6 - 0.9.2.1 v0.9.3 - 0.10.2 v0.11.0+
Live Bitcoin Trading With DeriBot on Deribit DeriBot Backup 119 watching Live now how to confirm btc ( bitcoin ) unconfirmed transaction ! 100% working ! mlm nitin - Duration: 6:11. This video is a 25 minute review of howmuch you can make using this script that you can download for FREE using the link below. ... investment,free bitcoin,free btc,bitcoin mining,fastest spinner ... Exploring the revolutionary Bitcoin digital currency. It doesn't need banks or to be printed. It can be transferred in a second to anywhere in the world. Wit... When you first Download the Digibyte Core Wallet it can sometimes take a few days to download the entire blockchain. Having the longest Blockchain is great but it doesn't make it easy for people ... Mystery Founder Of Bitcoin: Uncovering Satoshi Nakamoto's Identity Of ... 6:35. Blockchain City - The Future of Cities Driven by Blockchain (Full Movie 40 minutes) - Duration: 41:09. Ian Khan ...