Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

makeorbrake

It's no longer 'rubbish as a payment method'. Try to keep up

makeorbrake

How many digits do you have to screw up to send to the wrong address?

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Blockchain technology has been around 10 years, and has never found any real adoption outside buying drugs, child porn, money laundering , and speculating on its future price. There’s almost not a single viable usecase for it that can’t be done better with a distributed DB and p2p technology.

Holy mother of god.
The technology is in it's infancy and Ethereum is the first maturing example of a blockchain with utility beyond money.
It's not a finished product, ergo implementation in the real world will be slow until it is production-ready. All of these companies seem to see something you don't (because you can't be bothered doing any research whatsoever beyond potentials for fraud and your own price speculation).

Be rational, put your thinking cap on - why are these companies spending tens of millions developing within and contributing to the Ethereum ecosystem?

They all love píssing money away, is that it? I'll have to send a group email to all of them, they're going to feel so stupid now that the great sage JohnnyFlash has outlined the worthlessness of the projects they've been working on for no reason.

I agree with your points re:Bitcoin for the most part but there's a reason it moves so slowly - it has to be secure. Most of the dev's time is spent testing builds. This should go for all blockchain projects tbh, security is paramount.
The narrative for BTC has switched to sidechains for further functionality now anyway, whether for good or bad I suppose we'll see as it plays out.

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

The ecological thing is nonsense Johnny. You started off being an asset but some of your more recent posts have merit... particularly in relation to Tether/Bitfinex.

I think it's useful to get the contrarian view but there does seem to be a resentment with regard to crypto....which makes me wonder - why the interest in crypto to begin with?

How is it nonsense? Bitcoin mining alone is using more electricity than either Ireland or Denmark - both countries hosting some of the world’s largest cloud computing data centres. For what? So people can speculate on the price of a virtual currency in the hope they make a few quid? It’s grotesque when you think about it.

As for the interest incrypto? Well I’m Irish, and this is a forum discussing something that became international news in December of last year. I’m a naturally curious sort, and started reading about it. I was soon fascinated by the cult like behavior, the slang used in the community, the weird libertarian vibe around the whole thing, the scams, the fake announcements, the pump and dumps, the dreams of owning a lambo, the tax worries, the tether impending disaster etc.

I love it. I just hapo3n to think it’s a steaming pile of shïte, and the second great online mania bubble.

makeorbrake

Firstly, the that should have read ass not asset ...damn auto correct.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

How is it nonsense? Bitcoin mining alone is using more electricity than either Ireland or Denmark - both countries hosting some of the world’s largest cloud computing data centres. For what? So people can speculate on the price of a virtual currency in the hope they make a few quid? It’s grotesque when you think about it.

Nonsense. You are starting out with the assumption that energy is being expended for no function - because of your views. Furthermore, you're not taking into account a move towards green energy and changes in the crypto space that will soften energy usage average.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

As for the interest incrypto? I’m a naturally curious sort, and started reading about it. I was soon fascinated by the cult like behavior, the slang used in the community, the weird libertarian...

You don't like libertarians? Well, I don't have any time for conservatives. What cult like behaviour? There are all sorts of people with an interest in crypto. I don't think its equitable to tar and feather them all.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I love it. I just hapo3n to think it’s a steaming pile of shïte, and the second great online mania bubble.

You love it but think it's a steaming pile of ****? Doesn't make any sense. If you thought that you wouldnt spend any time on it...unless you have some issue or other..

Arrival

grindle wrote: »

Holy mother of god.
The technology is in it's infancy and Ethereum is the first maturing example of a blockchain with utility beyond money.
It's not a finished product, ergo implementation in the real world will be slow until it is production-ready. All of these companies seem to see something you don't (because you can't be bothered doing any research whatsoever beyond potentials for fraud and your own price speculation).

Be rational, put your thinking cap on - why are these companies spending tens of millions developing within and contributing to the Ethereum ecosystem?

They all love píssing money away, is that it? I'll have to send a group email to all of them, they're going to feel so stupid now that the great sage JohnnyFlash has outlined the worthlessness of the projects they've been working on for no reason.

I agree with your points re:Bitcoin for the most part but there's a reason it moves so slowly - it has to be secure. Most of the dev's time is spent testing builds. This should go for all blockchain projects tbh, security is paramount.
The narrative for BTC has switched to sidechains for further functionality now anyway, whether for good or bad I suppose we'll see as it plays out.

Honestly, why is anyone entertaining Johnny. Just let him off in his own world of obliviousness, you can clearly tell he did little research and just bases all his opinions on that and doesn't try to keep up with the industry. His posts are borderline spam, not sure why he's allowed or even personally bothers posting in this section. A couple of my colleagues are blind contrarians like that when they couldn't even explain the basics of even just Bitcoin, let alone other CCs, so I've really learned to just smile and nod and say I'll take their opinions on board

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

Firstly, the that should have read ass not asset ...damn auto correct.

Nonsense. You are starting out with the assumption that energy is being expended for no function - because of your views. Furthermore, you're not taking into account a move towards green energy and changes in the crypto space that will soften energy usage average.



You don't like libertarians? Well, I don't have any time for conservatives. What cult like behaviour? There are all sorts of people with an interest in crypto. I don't think its equitable to tar and feather them all.



You love it but think it's a steaming pile of ****? Doesn't make any sense. If you thought that you wouldnt spend any time on it...unless you have some issue or other..

I’d suggest that lessening the energy consumption should be the main aim of crypto developers then.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

947 KWh per transaction. That’s astonishing electricity consumption. 32 average American houses could be powered for a day with that. Or 47 Irish houses. And people are pitching this as a store of value or a method of payment?


I love the scene, and the madness around it. The mania, the cognitive dissonance, the shilling, the scams, the hysteria, the language, the lingo. I also think 80’s action movies are shîte, but I still love them. They’re naff and entertaining.

JohnnyFlash

Arrival wrote: »

Honestly, why is anyone entertaining Johnny. Just let him off in his own world of obliviousness, you can clearly tell he did little research and just bases all his opinions on that and doesn't try to keep up with the industry. His posts are borderline spam, not sure why he's allowed or even personally bothers posting in this section. A couple of my colleagues are blind contrarians like that when they couldn't even explain the basics of even just Bitcoin, let alone other CCs, so I've really learned to just smile and nod and say I'll take their opinions on board

Why wouldn’t I be allowed post here? Is it only a place for lambo dream stories and blind belief in crypto? With one or two booze related exceptions, I’ve been polite, I post links, and I do my own research. I’d also suggest that I’m rather better read and more objective about this entire space than some of the regulars here. Lads who invested in obvious Chinese shïtcoins before Christmas, and are now sour about very valid and fairly objective criticism of the scene.

manu2009

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I’d suggest that lessening the energy consumption should be the main aim of crypto developers then.
https://digiconomist.net/bitcoin-energy-consumption

947 KWh per transaction. That’s astonishing electricity consumption. 32 average American houses could be powered for a day with that. Or 47 Irish houses. And people are pitching this as a store of value or a method of payment?

I guess you haven't heard of Proof of stake then and all the other crypto currencies that use it as a more energy efficient transaction verification mechanism.

It's like your trying to find everything negative about the space and continue to post it taking it as face value without actually doing proper research or having any experience with the technology such as mining or setting up a wallet or sending transactions yourself.

kaymin

Out of interest, roughly how many transactions have crypto proponents completed using crypto in the last 6 months and what was the typical type of transaction? Ignoring investments in crypto obviously.

Pintman Paddy Losty

kaymin wrote: »

Out of interest, roughly how many transactions have crypto proponents completed using crypto in the last 6 months and what was the typical type of transaction? Ignoring investments in crypto obviously.

I'd say it's not the type of thing people talk about on an open forum :eek:

manu2009

kaymin wrote: »

Out of interest, roughly how many transactions have crypto proponents completed using crypto in the last 6 months and what was the typical type of transaction? Ignoring investments in crypto obviously.

Booked a hotel, placed multiple orders on Amazon. Seamless process in both cases and beats having to deal with banks.

I would have made more transactions but I see it as a long term investment.

JohnnyFlash

manu2009 wrote: »

I guess you haven't heard of Proof of stake then and all the other crypto currencies that use it as a more energy efficient transaction verification mechanism.

It's like your trying to find everything negative about the space and continue to post it taking it as face value without actually doing proper research or having any experience with the technology such as mining or setting up a wallet or sending transactions yourself.

I’ve heard of proof of stake. I just haven’t seen any implementation that maps to practical usage. I’m aware of lightening apps, but don’t see how they offer any benefits over conventional payment methods, apart from it appealing to Austrian school libertarians who get a boner about the government not being involved, and the lack of regulation. I haven’t seen anyone in the entire space give a valid explanation for how the coins they have invested in will be used in practical rollouts of blockchain, and what benefits they will receive for owning them?

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Strawman much Johnny? The fact that large scale crytpo mining is a waste of resources and environmentally unfriendly, which I'd agree it currently is, has very little bearing on its value or financial viability. Cars represent a far bigger waste of resources and threat to the environment the that doesn't stop the automotive industry being viable now does it?

Cars consume resources and threaten the environment, but they also do potentially wealth-creating things like carry people and goods around, which is why consumers are prepared to pay for them, which is why car manufacturing is profitable.

Crypto mining also consumes resources and threatens the environment, but it doesn't produce anything that appears to play any role in creating wealth This is what distinguishes it from manufacturing cars, and what contributes to concerns about a possible bubble.

lifeandtimes

kaymin wrote: »

Out of interest, roughly how many transactions have crypto proponents completed using crypto in the last 6 months and what was the typical type of transaction? Ignoring investments in crypto obviously.

I bought a shirt from a football team in the states. There's a cafe called the crypto cafe in Dublin where I buy coffee,I'm looking at heading to Russia this year for the world cup so will use cryptos there if I find the prices reasonable

lifeandtimes

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I haven’t seen anyone in the entire space give a valid explanation for how the coins they have invested in will be used in practical rollouts of blockchain, and what benefits they will receive for owning them?

Or you've just ignored them.

There's 115 pages here paddy or Johnny that you can sift through and find thought out valid argument and evidence to your point there

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Cars consume resources and threaten the environment, but they also do potentially wealth-creating things like carry people and goods around, which is why consumers are prepared to pay for them, which is why car manufacturing is profitable.

Crypto mining also consumes resources and threatens the environment, but it doesn't produce anything that appears to play any role in creating wealth This is what distinguishes it from manufacturing cars, and what contributes to concerns about a possible bubble.

Are you sure that the wealth derived from cars is derived entirely from the utility that they offer, or rather is a large part of it on the basis that they are desirable and have become embedded into our culture as a perceived necessity on that basis? Cars aside, how much of what we consume do we buy primarily on the basis that we want it rather than need it? What percentage of the energy we consume or the resources we use are ultimately wasted?

As for mining, I agree entirely that large scale proof of work mining is neither desirable nor sustainable in the long term. I'd fully expect this to change to proof of stake as technology moves on, as is slated for ETH this year. While further away, I'd expect very low power/cost technologies such as tangle to play a large role going forward.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

Are you sure that the wealth derived from cars is derived entirely from the utility that they offer, or rather is a large part of it on the basis that they are desirable and have become embedded into our culture as a perceived necessity on that basis? Cars aside, how much of what we consume do we buy primarily on the basis that we want it rather than need it? What percentage of the energy we consume or the resources we use are ultimately wasted?

As for mining, I agree entirely that large scale proof of work mining is neither desirable nor sustainable in the long term. I'd fully expect this to change to proof of stake as technology moves on, as is slated for ETH this year. While further away, I'd expect very low power/cost technologies such as tangle to play a large role going forward.

I'd say the value of cars is largely derived from their utility, no least because they are in fact extremely useful. There's two kinds of utility involved here, I think. There's what I might call economic utility, where cars help to make people wealthier (by being used as a taxi, by enabling someone to take a job that he couldn't othewise take, etc, etc) and, um, intangible utility where the car doesn't make me any wealthier, but improves my live by, e.g., letting me visit friends more easily, go walking in the hills more easily, etc, etc. People will pay for both kinds, and both kinds increase their welfare.

That's not to say that there isn't some additional element of car pricing which reflects their cultural desirability, and this is more prominent for some marques than for others. But, honestly, looking at the car industry as a whole, I think it's fairly marginal.

For crypto, just to be clear, I'm not saying that the crypto market is a bubble. It looks pretty bubblish to me, but I'm the first to admit I don't really know very much about it, so my perception of a bubble may tell you more about me than it does about the market I'm looking at. But right now crypto does seem to be pretty poor at doing thing that conventional currency does much better, and I'm not seeing where the value in crypto comes from.

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'd say the value of cars is largely derived from their utility, no least because they are in fact extremely useful. There's two kinds of utility involved here, I think. There's what I might call economic utility, where cars help to make people wealthier (by being used as a taxi, by enabling someone to take a job that he couldn't othewise take, etc, etc) and, um, intangible utility where the car doesn't make me any wealthier, but improves my live by, e.g., letting me visit friends more easily, go walking in the hills more easily, etc, etc. People will pay for both kinds, and both kinds increase their welfare.

That's not to say that there isn't some additional element of car pricing which reflects their cultural desirability, and this is more prominent for some marques than for others. But, honestly, looking at the car industry as a whole, I think it's fairly marginal.

If this was the case, we wouldn't see many journeys being made by a single occupant in a large four seater where most of the time is spent at low speeds or idle in traffic jams alongside other single occupancy cars going down the same road in the same direction to ultimately arrive at a large expensive concrete bunker where they will remain idle for the rest of the day. Yes cars have utility, but I'd dispute that they generate wealth primarily on the basis of being utilitarian.

For crypto, just to be clear, I'm not saying that the crypto market is a bubble. It looks pretty bubblish to me, but I'm the first to admit I don't really know very much about it, so my perception of a bubble may tell you more about me than it does about the market I'm looking at. But right now crypto does seem to be pretty poor at doing thing that conventional currency does much better, and I'm not seeing where the value in crypto comes from.

Much more to this technology than replacement of currency. e.g. if you allow for provable ownership history of any asset, it becomes a very interesting tool for asset management, and traceability of goods.

Peregrinus

smacl wrote: »

If this was the case, we wouldn't see many journeys being made by a single occupant in a large four seater where most of the time is spent at low speeds or idle in traffic jams alongside other single occupancy cars going down the same road in the same direction to ultimately arrive at a large expensive concrete bunker where they will remain idle for the rest of the day. Yes cars have utility, but I'd dispute that they generate wealth primarily on the basis of being utilitarian.

The journey to work obviously has a role to play in wealth creation. And if you do it by car, it's because that is easier, cheaper or otherwise more attractive than doing it by other means.

smacl wrote: »

Much more to this technology than replacement of currency. e.g. if you allow for provable ownership history of any asset, it becomes a very interesting tool for asset management, and traceability of goods.

Oh, I can get that blockchain technology has wealth-creating potential. But it doesn't follow that everything that employes blockchain technology is itself wealth-creating. The wealth-creating potential of, e.g., bitcoin is not so obvious to me.

JohnnyFlash

lifeandtimes wrote: »

Or you've just ignored them.

There's 115 pages here paddy or Johnny that you can sift through and find thought out valid argument and evidence to your point there

I haven’t ignored them. I haven’t seen a single answer given here, or indeed on the wider internet, about what holding these coins gives a person above a belief that someone will pay you more for them in the future. That’s the greater fool theory.

They don’t give you a stake in the company who created them.

The companies who created them never explain how owning them will give you any form of reward or even how the coin fits into their business model (if they have one). Say I own 10000 xrp from Ripple. How is that going to make me wealthy? How will I be rewarded for owning them? Even if banks started uskng Ripple’s tech they never have to use xrp. Even if they did how would they reward people who own them? Why would they? What would be so attractive to banks that they would reward xrp holders, build a new business model around this, and ditch everything they’ve done so far.

Forking. There’s literally an infinite amount of cryptocurrencies that can be created, each with the potential to create an infinite amount of coins. Monero was forked 9 times since Friday. Causing quite the debate on darknet markets by all accounts.

Public vs private Blockchain. There may be some niche usecase for Blockchain within industry. Creating your own chain is now trivially easy, or you can partner with Microsoft/IBM/Accenture. No coins, no hodling, no onerous proof of work destroying the Leccie bills.

lifeandtimes

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I haven’t ignored them. I haven’t seen a single answer given here, or indeed on the wider internet, about what holding these coins gives a person above a belief that someone will pay you more for them in the future. That’s the greater fool theory.

They don’t give you a stake in the company who created them.

The companies who created them never explain how owning them will give you any form of reward or even how the coin fits into their business model (if they have one). Say I own 10000 xrp from Ripple. How is that going to make me wealthy? How will I be rewarded for owning them? Even if banks started uskng Ripple’s tech they never have to use xrp. Even if they did how would they reward people who own them? Why would they? What would be so attractive to banks that they would reward xrp holders, build a new business model around this, and ditch everything they’ve done so far.

Forking. There’s literally an infinite amount of cryptocurrencies that can be created, each with the potential to create an infinite amount of coins. Monero was forked 9 times since Friday. Causing quite the debate on darknet markets by all accounts.

Public vs private Blockchain. There may be some niche usecase for Blockchain within industry. Creating your own chain is now trivially easy, or you can partner with Microsoft/IBM/Accenture. No coins, no hodling, no onerous proof of work destroying the Leccie bills.

Your just using examples to further your agenda

THere are actual coins being used in the real word i.e. as actual currency, some russian hotels will accept crypto, bitcoin is accepted in a LOT of places world wide, arizona is accepting it to pay taxs, Tron is being used as a payment option for the chinese netflix (seing as you are so found of referencing the chinese)

These are all real world usages and that gives them value

As has been said already here, the crypto world is less than 10 years old, it usually takes years for things to be adopted but once it reachs the momentum needed for people to change over(like debits cards did) it will all be an easy ride for crypto to be adopted by the masses. Which ones will stand out is yet to be scene but it will happen and for an example if your holding 10 million tron and they are then accepted by places for goods and services world wide well then youll be a rich man without ever having to change it too fiat

I agree that we need the postive and negative in this forum but your paranoia of the chinese and the ultimate demise of crypto makes me wonder wha you actually get out of this forum other than be able to say " i told you so" if it goes belly up

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

The journey to work obviously has a role to play in wealth creation. And if you do it by car, it's because that is easier, cheaper or otherwise more attractive than doing it by other means.

Might be best to agree to differ here, as I personally believe that expenditure in the automotive industry and attendant infrastructure as it currently stands places a huge burden on society and is based on forceful salesmanship more so than provision of value for money transport.

Oh, I can get that blockchain technology has wealth-creating potential. But it doesn't follow that everything that employes blockchain technology is itself wealth-creating. The wealth-creating potential of, e.g., bitcoin is not so obvious to me.

Agreed, but the genesis of the blockchain technology that has the potential to create this wealth will have been bitcoin. Very many of the other coins and solutions rest on Ethereum which is a rather different value proposition in that it aims to offer far more than the potential to replace currency and similarly aims to become a greener technology. Even then, it could be no more than one of many stepping stones going forward.

Dades

smacl wrote: »

Might be best to agree to differ here, as I personally believe that expenditure in the automotive industry and attendant infrastructure as it currently stands places a huge burden on society and is based on forceful salesmanship more so than provision of value for money transport.

I'd argue cars are almost always a necessity, just that the money people spend on them is often excessive for their requirements. But if you have kids or need to drive to work a car is something you cannot do without, and therefore justify their carbon requirement.

grindle

Arrival wrote: »

Honestly, why is anyone entertaining Johnny.

The unfortunate thing is that if you leave them have their way and stay silent then their narrative wins out.
Sometimes he's right on the money and some of his concerns are things which should concern us all, but if nobody opposes whichever of his arguments have little or no merit he'll be an unchallenged foghorn decrying dangers whether they exist or not, and that will shape the opinions of those who have less time to do their own research.

kaymin wrote: »

Out of interest, roughly how many transactions have crypto proponents completed using crypto in the last 6 months and what was the typical type of transaction? Ignoring investments in crypto obviously.

Coffee and..."stuff"... in Amsterdam, paying websites using BAT & Brave on my "crypto laptop", playing a dice game, tipping people on Reddit.
Probably 50+ txs over the past 6 months. Would use much more often if more places accepted crypto. I understand why some don't but do believe the next couple of years will see increases in adoption of the more usable cryptos.
Huge advances need to be made for UX and general on-ramping, if it stays this clunky it'll stay a niche back-end product for IT/fintech/data verification rather than a fiat usurper.

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I haven’t ignored them. I haven’t seen a single answer given here, or indeed on the wider internet, about what holding these coins gives a person above a belief that someone will pay you more for them in the future. That’s the greater fool theory.
...
The companies who created them never explain how owning them will give you any form of reward or even how the coin fits into their business model (if they have one). Say I own 10000 xrp from Ripple. How is that going to make me wealthy? How will I be rewarded for owning them? Even if banks started uskng Ripple’s tech they never have to use xrp. Even if they did how would they reward people who own them? Why would they? What would be so attractive to banks that they would reward xrp holders, build a new business model around this, and ditch everything they’ve done so far.

Were all the successive shareholders of Amazon and Apple greater fools when those companies weren't paying dividends for years on end?
I'd argue not. Shrewd investors saw the potential for adoption despite a lack of profit share for a terribly long time.

If a coin has true utility (and most don't, not by a longshot) then prices will naturally rise with adoption and naturally fall due to lack of use and profit-taking.
The price rise in the latter half of last year was speculation on what it could be worth in future, this is what happens when everybody is able to invest and chases green candles. I remember thinking ETH might hit $300 by the end of 2018, I was stunned when it jumped over $1k.

The use of XRP will decrease the cost of the service to the business using it, that's why they may want to use it. They can use the Ripple gateway without it but at a higher cost to themselves.
Do businesses prefer to pay more, or pay less?

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Public vs private Blockchain. There may be some niche usecase for Blockchain within industry. Creating your own chain is now trivially easy, or you can partner with Microsoft/IBM/Accenture. No coins, no hodling, no onerous proof of work destroying the Leccie bills.

IBM will be using XLM as well as HyperLedger, MSFT and Accenture are part of Ethereum's Enterprise Alliance, anything that is public facing and in need of transparency will be committed to the main chain.
This has all been brought up to you before but you keep ignoring it.
How come?

smacl

Dades wrote: »

I'd argue cars are almost always a necessity, just that the money people spend on them is often excessive for their requirements.

And that excess spend is a luxury spend based on available income which is no different from taking a punt on the latest ICO, and a pretty large punt at that. When I see a significant portion of front gardens in my area paved over to make space for the second or third car in the family, I see more lifestyle choice than necessity. Now as for all those new Lambos, don't get me started...

Anyhow, back on topic, I notice ETH seems to have levelled out after recent losses, though still far from stable. Anyone else think this downward spiral is coming to a close?

lifeandtimes

Really good article

https://www.coindesk.com/dear-students-everything-bitcoins-way-1-billion-opportunity/

Dades

smacl wrote: »

And that excess spend is a luxury spend based on available income which is no different from taking a punt on the latest ICO, and a pretty large punt at that.

I thought the point was not the price, but whether the carbon footprint is justified by utility?

smacl

Dades wrote: »

I thought the point was not the price, but whether the carbon footprint is justified by utility?

Large scale PoW based crypto currency mining on the bigger coins, clearly unacceptable carbon footprint based on utility. Newer solutions such as PoS or Tangle with broader utility, probably acceptable.

Large cars with a single occupant sitting in traffic jams for hours to arrive at a concrete carpark where they sit all day, questionable. SUVs with kids on the school run who would have walked or cycled in the previous generation, questionable. Professional driver such as taxi, or someone who needs a car during their working day, reasonable.

To give a bit of perspective here, in 2017 there were 1.2 billion cars on the road, the EPA estimates a typical private cars has a carbon footprint of 4.7 million tons per year, so use of cars gives us an annual carbon footprint of ~5.6 billion tons per year. This is before we look at manufacturing or infrastructure costs. Bitcoin has a carbon footprint of up to 44 million tons per year. You might consider the first acceptable and the latter not, I'd suggest both are unacceptable with the car being a bigger cause of concern.

Wanderer78

was at a bitcoin talk last week, rather utopian view on the future in relation to currency and money, 'the experts' had a very poor understanding of money and its creation in the real world as well. interesting talk all the same, its a very interesting and exciting time, but a lot of critical issues still need to be ironed out before crytos can truly be used in day to day life.