Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

JJJJNR

Dades wrote: »

FFS, I work in financial compliance I have designed processes for one of the biggest crypto exchanges around who are now a client - I asked an honest question.

I guess this is the Kool aid thread. I made a few quid out of Matic while following it, but Jesus the insecurity here is palpable.

I'm a solutions architect and can talk this all day no kool aid required.

JJJJNR

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

lol

You still using punch card's Johnny

grindle

JJJJNR wrote: »

You still using punch card's Johnny

He's still using the Johnny instead of seashells. Shame really, seashells would let him savour the scent of his own shít for longer and he could verifiy the contents of his shít.

JohnnyFlash

JJJJNR wrote: »

You still using punch card's Johnny

You’re the ‘solutions architect’ who thinks databases will be legacy technology in 5 years time. Someone better tell Oracle, Microsoft, Amazon, as well as the hundreds of academics still carrying out computer science research into database theory.

One can only hope that the extent of your ‘architecture’ goes about as far as resetting a password when someone calls you. Or maybe changing the toner in a network printer.

JJJJNR

Hate to break it to you but 75% of new academy repos are based in blockchain big J.. spend some time reading up.

Back in the helpdesk days I wrote some PowerShell scripts that enabled users to reset their own passwords..

Your obviously a bit of legend in your own lunchtime.

q85dw7osi4lebg

Can we stop measuring our Mickey's and get back to business pls.

We are currently green on almost all major BTC time frame charts.

q85dw7osi4lebg

I really don't know why anyone would want to spend their weekend telling strangers on the internet that a new technology is muck. It's a nice day, go to the beach or something.

Grumpypants

Addison Fancy Macrame wrote: »

I really don't know why anyone would want to spend their weekend telling strangers on the internet that a new technology is muck. It's a nice day, go to the beach or something.

It's pissing here

Blueshoe

Not great news here.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/fe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ffe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9

worded

Blueshoe wrote: »

Not great news here.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/fe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ffe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9

That’s behind a pay wall

Paste the article ?

Blueshoe

worded wrote: »

That’s behind a pay wall

Paste the article ?

Just clicked it now again. You are correct about the paywall. I could read it earlier though. Damn

grindle

worded wrote: »

That’s behind a pay wall

Paste the article ?

Here
And references this one too
Here

Blueshoe wrote: »

Not great news here.

https://amp-ft-com.cdn.ampproject.org/v/s/amp.ft.com/content/fe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9?amp_js_v=a2&amp_gsa=1&usqp=mq331AQA#referrer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.com&amp_tf=From%20%251%24s&ampshare=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ft.com%2Fcontent%2Ffe5b17e1-4040-3249-b473-f3c998c67de9

Is it "news"? Have you read it? She uses herself as a source multiple times in the same article.

grindle wrote:

I think ice-cream is overrated

Oh well, I guess ice-cream is overrated cos I said so.
E&Y have already said that they've managed to make their ZKSnarks implementation 90-95% cheaper within a year of development and hope for a further 90-95% drop from current cost by EOY, her "study" and the reveal that Bundesbank experienced inefficiency from 2016-2018 while scalability is still an issue - before everything is built out - doesn't make any difference.

If Bundesbank wanted to know if a network capable of only 5-15tx/s would be efficient for large volumes of productivity in the 2016-2018 timeframe I could have told them without them spending any budget. Sad times when I'd be a good consultant on scalability, they should have asked literally any single ETH dev or ConsenSys if it would be manageable.
This quote (the first where she quotes herself):

For one, we’re not convinced blockchain can ever be successfully delinked from a coupon or token pay-off component without compromising the security of the system.

Is actually a positive for public blockchains. A negative against private blockchains. It's saying:

For one, we’re not convinced blockchain can ever be successfully delinked from [with] a coupon or token pay-off component without compromising [to provide] the security of the system.

Gosh, journalism is easy. She's a professional? An editor at FT? Christ.

Blueshoe

grindle wrote: »

Here
And references this one too
Here

Is it "news"? Have you read it? She uses herself as a source multiple times in the same article.

Oh well, I guess ice-cream is overrated cos I said so.
E&Y have already said that they've managed to make their ZKSnarks implementation 90-95% cheaper within a year of development and hope for a further 90-95% drop from current cost by EOY, her "study" and the reveal that Bundesbank experienced inefficiency from 2016-2018 while scalability is still an issue - before everything is built out - doesn't make any difference.

If Bundesbank wanted to know if a network capable of only 5-15tx/s would be efficient for large volumes of productivity in the 2016-2018 timeframe I could have told them without them spending any budget. Sad times when I'd be a good consultant on scalability, they should have asked literally any single ETH dev or ConsenSys if it would be manageable.
This quote (the first where she quotes herself):

Is actually a positive for public blockchains. A negative against private blockchains. It's saying:

Gosh, journalism is easy. She's a professional? An editor at FT? Christ.

Disregard everything and everyone else. Personally attack them.

(Echo chamber forming)

grindle

Blueshoe wrote: »

Disregard everything and everyone else. Personally attack them.

(Echo chamber forming)

Where did I attack you? Her points are based on a company utilising the network in early days but pretending like it'll always be that way.
If she's unaware that software gets updated and improved upon, I feel sorry for her.

Blueshoe

grindle wrote: »

Where did I attack you? Her points are based on a company utilising the network in early days but pretending like it'll always be that way.
If she's unaware that software gets updated and improved upon, I feel sorry for her.

Maybe it will improve but she was speaking about here and now.
You didn't personally attack me.

grindle

Blueshoe wrote: »

Maybe it will improve but she was speaking about here and now.

Here and now but presented as a peek into the future. Disingenuous maybe?
She's literally in her own echo chamber, presenting her own previous posts and pontifications as relevant news.
But I get accused of forming an echo chamber.
K.

Blueshoe

grindle wrote: »

Here and now but presented as a peek into the future. Disingenuous maybe?
She's literally in her own echo chamber, presenting her own previous posts and pontifications as relevant news.
But I get accused of forming an echo chamber.
K.

Right ok. No point in going down the usual rabbit hole of arguing and taking sides which just derails the thread. The article is posted and you disagree. I have no real opinion on it so that's all

makeorbrake

Blueshoe wrote: »

Disregard everything and everyone else. Personally attack them.

(Echo chamber forming)

I don't see the personal attack and echo chamber scenario in this instance.

Everything has to be taken in context. Someone from a central bank saying blockchain tech is rubbish? - well, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Run a google search on comments made by various central bank officials internationally in relation to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Do the same for Agustin Carstens - head of the central bank of central banks - the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

This technology is not in their interests.

stockshares

Lads this arguing is tiresome. It's becoming like the Maria Bailey thread here

Blueshoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't see the personal attack and echo chamber scenario in this instance.

Everything has to be taken in context. Someone from a central bank saying blockchain tech is rubbish? - well, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Run a google search on comments made by various central bank officials internationally in relation to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Do the same for Agustin Carstens - head of the central bank of central banks - the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

This technology is not in their interests.

If it turns out to be a faster,more secure and cheaper system the technology is definitely in their interest!
That's why they were testing it.

Banking is one of the biggest supposed use cases for Blockchain.

If you don't agree that's perfectly fine but don't just knowingly lie

makeorbrake

Blueshoe wrote: »

If it turns out to be a faster,more secure and cheaper system the technology is definitely in their interest!
That's why they were testing it.

Banking is one of the biggest supposed use cases for Blockchain.

If you don't agree that's perfectly fine but don't just knowingly lie

You have a set of balls on you - calling me a liar!


If a technology could put you out of business or take control away from you (central banks are ALL about control), then the technology on a macro level is NOT in their interests.

Blueshoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

You have a set of balls on you - calling me a liar!


If a technology could put you out of business or take control away from you (central banks are ALL about control), then the technology on a macro level is NOT in their interests.

Private Blockchain.

They don't have to use any of the ****e bag coins and can create their own. But they have said that Blockchain was slow and expensive.
No use to them.

I shouldn't have called you a liar. You have your beliefs while I'm on the fence so far. We both own crypto though so are on the same side.

makeorbrake

Blueshoe wrote: »

They don't have to use any of the ****e bag coins and can create their own. But they have said that Blockchain was slow and expensive.
No use to them.

The narrative that has been emanating from those quarters has been consistent in sullying both cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. So if you want to believe their utterances, then go right ahead. To me, they're far from credible. They have a vested interest in dismissing the technology. It could make them obsolete - or (in the case where a currency exists outside of their control) very much dilute their powers.

As regards 'private blockchain', that's also known as a database. There may be certain specific scenario's where that middle of the road option still suits but in general terms, the notion defeats the whole purpose of decentralised blockchain technology.

It's no revelation to confirm that blockchain doesn't perform as efficiently as a database. However, it brings other advantages to the table. If - for a particular application - those advantages can't be capitalised (for whatever specific use case), then continue on using centralised databases.

Blueshoe wrote: »

I shouldn't have called you a liar. You have your beliefs while I'm on the fence so far. We both own crypto though so are on the same side.

Glad to see you roll back on that (as I didn't lie). Quite happy to be found wrong and I disagree as regards 'arguing' - I'm all in favour of it as it's otherwise known as discussion. Just not with the snide condescension or nastiness as we've seen from the two resident clowns here - and not from someone who simply won't recognise/acknowledge a single quality in the technology.

stockshares

Lads this argument isn't exciting

makeorbrake

stockshares wrote: »

Lads this argument isn't exciting

If you're referring to me, I don't care if you're not excited. Despite an objection I had with one particular remark Blueshoes made, what you call an 'argument' I call a discussion. If you're not happy and I've broken the rules of engagement, please click on report and bring post (or posts) to the attention of the Mod.

stockshares

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you're referring to me, I don't care if you're not excited. Despite an objection I had with one particular remark Blueshoes made, what you call an 'argument' I call a discussion. If you're not happy and I've broken the rules of engagement, please click on report and bring post (or posts) to the attention of the Mod.

I've no interest in reporting anyone but both of you could argue this in Private. The Discussion is taking the thread off topic

makeorbrake

stockshares wrote: »

I've no interest in reporting anyone but both of you could argue this in Private. The Discussion is taking the thread off topic

These threads tend to be wide ranging (between this one and the last one that covered crypto winter) ...so if I'm 'off topic' then everyone is. You can ask the mod to split this discussion off into a separate thread if you feel that's appropriate.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

I don't see the personal attack and echo chamber scenario in this instance.

Everything has to be taken in context. Someone from a central bank saying blockchain tech is rubbish? - well, turkeys don't vote for Christmas. Run a google search on comments made by various central bank officials internationally in relation to cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. Do the same for Agustin Carstens - head of the central bank of central banks - the Bank for International Settlements (BIS).

This technology is not in their interests.

It's not about threats or "interests" or any of that, it's simply about their opinions on it. Some in finance think it's the future, other's think it is rubbish

makeorbrake

Dohnjoe wrote: »

It's not about threats or "interests" or any of that, it's simply about their opinions on it. Some in finance think it's the future, other's think it is rubbish

If you're saying that peoples views don't have the potential to be coloured by self interest, then I disagree.

Dohnjoe

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you're saying that peoples views don't have the potential to be coloured by self interest, then I disagree.

Yeah but there's this ridiculous quasi-tinfoil thing that somehow "the banks" see crypto as an existential threat to themselves and are always at pains to hinder/slander it, which is complete nonsense of course

Different financial people see the tech/crypto in different light, Buffet thinks BTC is "rat poison squared", Lagarde praised it and Dimon flipped on it

It's just personal opinions