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

sexmag · 14-08-2018 10:53AM

seannash wrote: »

I'm kinda waiting to see how companies like Shipchain do. I can see it succeed as a company and I'm really curious to see what that will do for cryptocurrencies when companies like them begin to succeed.

The idea is pretty good, its taking the standard track and trace of small goods to the bigger ones. Seems like a good thing to hold a bag off and at the price its at now sure why not

smacl · 14-08-2018 11:32AM

seannash wrote: »

I'm kinda waiting to see how companies like Shipchain do. I can see it succeed as a company and I'm really curious to see what that will do for cryptocurrencies when companies like them begin to succeed.

This is where I see blockchain having the biggest value in the medium term. Not a store of value so much as a mechanism for tracking assets that have a value. As such, I still very much doubt that BTC will be a winner in the long term as it is a weak solution here. ETH if Casper-2 comes to fruition is well placed, but for me IOTA is possibly better placed for larger numbers of lower value assets. e.g. I couldn't see ETH scaling for something like tracking food products but IOTA just might.

Personally, I'm planning to buy back in if we see stability again for a couple of continuous weeks. I reckon it could still have a fair bit to fall yet, after all BTC is still up on this time last year and ETH is only ~6%-7% down.

Dohnjoe · 14-08-2018 11:59AM

smacl wrote: »

This is where I see blockchain having the biggest value in the medium term. Not a store of value so much as a mechanism for tracking assets that have a value. As such, I still very much doubt that BTC will be a winner in the long term as it is a weak solution here. ETH if Casper-2 comes to fruition is well placed, but for me IOTA is possibly better placed for larger numbers of lower value assets. e.g. I couldn't see ETH scaling for something like tracking food products but IOTA just might.

Personally, I'm planning to buy back in if we see stability again for a couple of continuous weeks. I reckon it could still have a fair bit to fall yet, after all BTC is still up on this time last year and ETH is only ~6%-7% down.

I think the trick will be spotting the coins with the most value to the whole system in the medium and long run. Most large financial institutions and stock exchanges are looking at and developing blockchain solutions - some with their own systems started from scratch, others with Eth or other coins or in conjunction with other crypto projects

It's all happening irrespective of prices on the crypto market

makeorbrake · 14-08-2018 04:34PM

seannash wrote: »

The old money has been doing this since mid January according to everyone. Were basically saying institutional money is manipulating things but to do that they have to have already invested in

I need to clarify a distinction in what I'm saying. There have been 'whales' in the market for a long time and they can move the market. The institutional money is at a different level. I'm talking about GoldmanSachs, JP Morgan, etc.
Institutions have been waiting on custodial solutions and an SEC approved ETF - which will facilitate 401(k) and IRA plan money feeding in to crypto. Some of them have been involved in providing custodial solutions.

ionapaul wrote: »

The 'this dip is down to market manipulation, the institutions are getting ready to pile in' argument is about as believable as the 'this dip is just down to the Chinese new year, the money will come roaring back in within a few weeks' nonsense earlier in the year. Pure wishful thinking.

Institutions are getting involved - there's a shed load of tangible info to back that up - simply google it.

Bob24 wrote: »

That maket manipulation exists in cryptos I definitely believe, but I haven’t seen any evidence that Wall Street bankers have ganged up to drive prices down.

I think this is right on the money (literally).

makeorbrake · 14-08-2018 04:37PM

Bob24 wrote: »

For now the only practical use cryptos have been successful at is being a store of value (although not a stable one) and a speculative asset - I.e. “digital gold” even though I don’t think it is a perfect analogy as gold also has practical uses and is not completely virtual.

They're not all focused on being a transactional currency or store of value. Some of them have quite different applications. However, I do agree that they certainly can't all survive and most of them will fall by the wayside pretty quickly.

makeorbrake · 14-08-2018 04:42PM

smacl wrote: »

I couldn't see ETH scaling for something like tracking food products but IOTA just might.

Bit of a sale on at the moment (over and above most other altcoins - it's dived). Board room shenanigans have not helped. I am still enthusiastic about IOTA but my enthusiasm has definitely cooled. The upside always remains immense but there are so many obstacles along the way...concerns about security vulnerabilities, scaling issues and other technical issues, the coo and to cap it off, the leadership team at loggerheads.

seannash wrote:

I'm kinda waiting to see how companies like Shipchain do.

What is it's USP? What does it have that other coins don't?

Dohnjoe · 14-08-2018 04:51PM

makeorbrake wrote: »

They're not all focused on being a transactional currency or store of value. Some of them have quite different applications. However, I do agree that they certainly can't all survive and most of them will fall by the wayside pretty quickly.

Store of value coins are pretty much useless (as a store of value) due to their high volatility. Their only use case in that regard seems to be for speculation or hedging

Otherwise stable-coins are the only cryptos currently that have any hope of being used as an alternative currency

seannash · 14-08-2018 04:55PM

makeorbrake wrote: »

What is it's USP? What does it have that other coins don't?

Not trying to be a dick but just take a quick look into it and it'll be apparent what their USP is. Basically it allows better tracking of inventory during transport.

makeorbrake · 14-08-2018 05:10PM

seannash wrote: »

Not trying to be a dick but just take a quick look into it and it'll be apparent what their USP is. Basically it allows better tracking of inventory during transport.

Not trying to be a dick either - but drowning in coins and other stuff...you mentioned it - I asked....end of.

smacl · 14-08-2018 05:45PM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bit of a sale on at the moment (over and above most other altcoins - it's dived). Board room shenanigans have not helped. I am still enthusiastic about IOTA but my enthusiasm has definitely cooled. The upside always remains immense but there are so many obstacles along the way...concerns about security vulnerabilities, scaling issues and other technical issues, the coo and to cap it off, the leadership team at loggerheads.

Yep, they're certainly not doing themselves any favours at the moment, but my feeling is the technology will survive and do well even if there's a largely different team in place by the time this comes about. Whether the current coin will ever make for a sound investment is something else again. If you think of the atomic piece of information stored in many blockchain systems as 'who owned what when' if the 'what' part is very low value, security becomes less of an issue than scalability and minimal transaction cost. Once you take mining out of the equation, as proof of work makes transaction costs too high, I'm guessing for one portion of the market the winner will be lowest transaction cost at acceptable speed and acceptable levels of security. In this domain, lowest cost is based around fewest CPU cycles on cheap hardware with minimum bandwidth where IOTA still has the advantage. As you move onto higher value items, security and speed become more important and other solutions are going to be stronger. There are lots of use cases across the spectrum here, but high volume, low cost, micro-transactions does seem like one of the larger markets. (Says he reading the tea leaves and scratching his head).

makeorbrake · 14-08-2018 07:16PM

@smacl : I simply can't answer the things that I've got concerns about between not having the technical background and not being privy to the finer detail even if I could interpret it. The COO thing never goes away. It seems very logical the way they explain it i.e. that once there's sufficient numbers, we'll take it away. However, many folks with more tech savvy than me seem unconvinced. They have changed the approach from COO to a point whereby there won't be a COO - to now talking in terms of a distributed COO. ....which is leading some to believe that they can't figure out how to remove it.

Is there really much utility in IOTA if it were to remain centralised - as in that case, isn't it far easier to use a centralised database?

The security aspects - well, who's to say how that will play. They've gone against the grain, rolling their own crypto (which seems to be an industry no-no) and taken it a step further with trinary (although I understand they're thinking in terms of use with Jinn processors). They also handled the MIT thing badly. It may mean nothing but a major vulnerability exploit could sink it (and I know that's a risk with every single project - but it 'seems' to be that little bit more risky here).

Many of these projects are all fine and dandy until they come to implement. It has always been claimed that IOTA scales yet right now they're already dealing with scaling related issues (hence the proposal of Economic Clustering).

The immaturity is not exclusive to IOTA - it's right across the sector. They're all techies who started out from humble beginnings and now find themselves managing billion dollar projects. Ordinarily I wouldn't be too bothered but given the other aspects and the body of work they have in front of them, it doesn't help.

Been sitting on the fence for quite a while. At some stage, I guess I'll buy in - but nowhere near what I originally thought I'd put in...at least not until we see more.

sexmag · 14-08-2018 09:00PM

https://www.investinblockchain.com/periodic-table-cryptocurrencies/

Very nice interesting table and so neatly presented

Pussyhands · 15-08-2018 03:40PM

The whole thing is completely a gamble. There's no rationale to anything.

I follow the biggest online forums and everything is unpredictable. It reminds me of a sponge. The water is our money. The sponge is dipped in the water and the rich squeeze the money out and dip it back into the water again. And repeat.

There's some wealthy people making massive money in this.

Any rise or fall has a reason that people make up to rationalise it. Like at christmas when people were saying they take their money out for presents.

And that the wall street bankers get their bonuses so there's gonna be a rise.

Same thing with hackings etc. None of these things affect the price imo.

makeorbrake · 15-08-2018 03:59PM

@pussyhands : I got totally disillusioned trying to do Fundamental analysis using media streams. There's no such thing as unbiased media and some of it has an agenda that will lose the likes of us $ if we pay heed to it. I still read the stuff...but try and read between the lines and not put too much value on it.

Fian · 16-08-2018 01:37PM

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I think the trick will be spotting the coins with the most value to the whole system in the medium and long run. Most large financial institutions and stock exchanges are looking at and developing blockchain solutions - some with their own systems started from scratch, others with Eth or other coins or in conjunction with other crypto projects

It's all happening irrespective of prices on the crypto market

"coins" are not a way to invest in a concept. If a particular coin is used for an innovative or clever use of blockchain that is great. But it doesn't provide a value to the coin because anyone else can just create an alternative that performs exactly the same function. And ultimately it is likely that the ones that will be used will be backed by nation states, not some random startup from a garage in california or whatever. So a coin that perofrms a clever function is not inherently valuable.

Lets say you decide that blockchain is the way to handle property conveyancing - after all the main problem for solicitors conveying property is establishing exactly what property is owned, by whom, and essentially what the history of the property is. A blockchain can carry all that information in a secure and uncorruptible way. So that looks like somewhere we should eventually go and it will be far more efficient than title searches in the registry of deeds. But no way will a private company be trusted to administer that, it will be administered by the government. And the value of each "coin" in such a system will be tied to the value of the property it represents, not whether the use of blockchain for such a system is valuable.

smacl · 16-08-2018 02:37PM

Fian wrote: »

Lets say you decide that blockchain is the way to handle property conveyancing - after all the main problem for solicitors conveying property is establishing exactly what property is owned, by whom, and essentially what the history of the property is. A blockchain can carry all that information in a secure and uncorruptible way. So that looks like somewhere we should eventually go and it will be far more efficient than title searches in the registry of deeds. But no way will a private company be trusted to administer that, it will be administered by the government. And the value of each "coin" in such a system will be tied to the value of the property it represents, not whether the use of blockchain for such a system is valuable.

I think you're picking a very poor example with property there, as relative to just about any other commodity it has a very high price, low transaction rate, and is already tracked by the state. Take another use case I've come across recently, tracking ownership of building tools (e.g. power tools, laser levels and the like) which are currently being heavily targeted for theft by organised crime across Ireland and the UK. The state has no interest in tracking these goods (or any other consumer goods), but the owners most certainly do. The coin in this case equates to a ledger entry and associated transactions in an asset tracking blockchain and has a value based on the demand for such tracking. Once you start getting on-site audits of companies for proof of ownership of tools, this drives demand. We already have this in the software industry where audits are carried out on licenses in use as part of ISO 27000, and we're seeing blockchain such as TAAL addressing this use case. Personally, I don't see nation states getting involved for use cases much beyond what they already do with current database technology. Whether or not coins have a future as an investment vehicle long term is something else again.

sexmag · 16-08-2018 03:15PM

smacl wrote: »

I think you're picking a very poor example with property there, as relative to just about any other commodity it has a very high price, low transaction rate, and is already tracked by the state. Take another use case I've come across recently, tracking ownership of building tools (e.g. power tools, laser levels and the like) which are currently being heavily targeted for theft by organised crime across Ireland and the UK. The state has no interest in tracking these goods (or any other consumer goods), but the owners most certainly do. The coin in this case equates to a ledger entry and associated transactions in an asset tracking blockchain and has a value based on the demand for such tracking. Once you start getting on-site audits of companies for proof of ownership of tools, this drives demand. We already have this in the software industry where audits are carried out on licenses in use as part of ISO 27000, and we're seeing blockchain such as TAAL addressing this use case. Personally, I don't see nation states getting involved for use cases much beyond what they already do with current database technology. Whether or not coins have a future as an investment vehicle long term is something else again.

Thats a fantastic example smacl, its great to see the good potential of blockchain technology when its presented like that

makeorbrake · 16-08-2018 03:21PM

Fian wrote: »

"coins" are not a way to invest in a concept. If a particular coin is used for an innovative or clever use of blockchain that is great. But it doesn't provide a value to the coin

smacl nailed that one down for you. The 'value' arises due to the demand for the use case and thus the coin.

Fian wrote: »

because anyone else can just create an alternative that performs exactly the same function.

That's not true though. The second comer is going to have to offer something new - a u.s.p. You can put it to the test in next to no time. Lets say you set up Fiancoin as a replica of bitcoin. You can do it without any skill and in little to no time. How is Fiancoin going to be worth $6339?

Fian wrote: »

And ultimately it is likely that the ones that will be used will be backed by nation states

Backed by what? And are those offerings you speak to going to be centralised?

Fian wrote: »

not some random startup from a garage in california or whatever.

Garage startups? Hewlett-Packard? ....Dell? ...with a combined market cap of $100B . I'm sure there are other garage startups but those two spring to mind right now.

Fian wrote: »

But no way will a private company be trusted to administer that, it will be administered by the government.

You're missing the point completely. Well, ok - if the project you're talking about is going to be centralised, sure. The whole reason this all kicked off is that it demonstrated that it was and is possible to construct systems that assume there is NO trust.
As regards governments, I wouldn't - and don't - trust one of them as far as I could throw them.

unkel · 16-08-2018 07:11PM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Garage startups? Hewlett-Packard? ....Dell? ...with a combined market cap of $100B . I'm sure there are other garage startups but those two spring to mind right now.

How about MS, Apple, Google, Amazon?

The 4 biggest companies in the world by market cap all started in a garage :cool:

Pussyhands · 17-08-2018 12:00AM

unkel wrote: »

How about MS, Apple, Google, Amazon?

The 4 biggest companies in the world by market cap all started in a garage :cool:

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

makeorbrake · 17-08-2018 01:24AM

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

You think that it's not possible? I guess I'm getting old

as I don't see Google, Amazon and MS all that old ....and if you take the revived Apple from the point at which Jobs came back and revived it...then that too.

sexmag · 17-08-2018 07:21AM

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

The reason that isn't really happening anymore is due to educational opportunities etc.

All the people who would be building and creating companies are being snapped up right out of collage or are getting grants at summits for their ideas that gives them places to start from.

But to answer your question Facebook was started in a collage dorm room a little over 10 years ago

TallyRand · 18-08-2018 02:08AM

smacl wrote: »

I think you're picking a very poor example with property there, as relative to just about any other commodity it has a very high price, low transaction rate, and is already tracked by the state. Take another use case I've come across recently, tracking ownership of building tools (e.g. power tools, laser levels and the like) which are currently being heavily targeted for theft by organised crime across Ireland and the UK. The state has no interest in tracking these goods (or any other consumer goods), but the owners most certainly do. The coin in this case equates to a ledger entry and associated transactions in an asset tracking blockchain and has a value based on the demand for such tracking. Once you start getting on-site audits of companies for proof of ownership of tools, this drives demand. We already have this in the software industry where audits are carried out on licenses in use as part of ISO 27000, and we're seeing blockchain such as TAAL addressing this use case. Personally, I don't see nation states getting involved for use cases much beyond what they already do with current database technology. Whether or not coins have a future as an investment vehicle long term is something else again.

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

TallyRand · 18-08-2018 02:12AM

makeorbrake wrote: »

smacl nailed that one down for you. The 'value' arises due to the demand for the use case and thus the coin.

That's not true though. The second comer is going to have to offer something new - a u.s.p. You can put it to the test in next to no time. Lets say you set up Fiancoin as a replica of bitcoin. You can do it without any skill and in little to no time. How is Fiancoin going to be worth $6339?

Backed by what? And are those offerings you speak to going to be centralised?

Garage startups? Hewlett-Packard? ....Dell? ...with a combined market cap of $100B . I'm sure there are other garage startups but those two spring to mind right now.

You're missing the point completely. Well, ok - if the project you're talking about is going to be centralised, sure. The whole reason this all kicked off is that it demonstrated that it was and is possible to construct systems that assume there is NO trust.
As regards governments, I wouldn't - and don't - trust one of them as far as I could throw them.

On your last point I would argue you do actually trust governments, if you didn’t you would surely liquadate all state related ties and bank accounts, democracy and capitalism have their bad side but best of a bad bunch id say. Otherwise don’t have any fiat and live off crypto my man

unkel · 18-08-2018 02:21AM

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

You are being greedy now. Back in about 2002 very few people outside of IT geek circles were using Google search engine. I think I set up a FB account in around 2008. Before anyone around me did so and before it was ever mentioned in Irish media...

What do you want? A garage startup by some failed college dudes today, being worth a billion this time next year? A trillion (like Apple) within 10 years?

kaymin · 18-08-2018 06:59AM

TallyRand wrote: »

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

Exactly + these audits would cost way more than the cost of the theft problem. Even if they were cost effective the value of the coins used to verify ownership would need to be buttons.

smacl · 18-08-2018 08:56AM

TallyRand wrote: »

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

Typically it falls under the remit of QA, where the main contractor needs accreditation to get the work and must apply it to their subcontractors. The civil engineering and construction industry already carries out extensive checks on contractors and their equipment before they enter major sites and while on site. Having been involved in a number of big infrastructural projects in the UK such as CrossRail over the past number of years, if you don't have the appropriate paperwork, you're not going to be allowed on site. Simple as that. Any big site will have resident engineering staff checking the contractors work and this already includes checking servicing and calibration certs on larger pieces of kit. What a cowboy putting up an extension in your back yard might get away with won't fly on any big site. FWIW, there's already big money being spent on equipment tracking, see this for one example. Being able demonstrate proof of ownership of equipment is already an issue and tracking such items is big business.

smacl · 18-08-2018 09:11AM

kaymin wrote: »

Exactly + these audits would cost way more than the cost of the theft problem. Even if they were cost effective the value of the coins used to verify ownership would need to be buttons.

Not really. Most builders already have steel cages in their vans to protect equipment and won't get insurance without it. Cost of tracking serial numbers over a blockchain is tiny by comparison, and using tech such as embedded RFID to store and serial numbers allows them to be checked extremely quickly and makes removal expensive. There is already a lot of money moving around here, quite a bit of which relates to theft which can be prevented by decimating illegal resale value. The impediment isn't the cost or technology, it is that the manufacturers have been slow to react as theft actually benefits them. Their hands are currently being forced by user demand in a competitive environment.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 10:11AM

smacl wrote: »

Typically it falls under the remit of QA, where the main contractor needs accreditation to get the work and must apply it to their subcontractors. The civil engineering and construction industry already carries out extensive checks on contractors and their equipment before they enter major sites and while on site. Having been involved in a number of big infrastructural projects in the UK such as CrossRail over the past number of years, if you don't have the appropriate paperwork, you're not going to be allowed on site. Simple as that. Any big site will have resident engineering staff checking the contractors work and this already includes checking servicing and calibration certs on larger pieces of kit. What a cowboy putting up an extension in your back yard might get away with won't fly on any big site. FWIW, there's already big money being spent on equipment tracking, see this for one example. Being able demonstrate proof of ownership of equipment is already an issue and tracking such items is big business.

You're confusing health and safety and quality checks with ownership of the equipment. Does Crossrail need to or actually verify ownership of equipment used by contractors they engage? No is the short answer.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 10:16AM

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Most builders already have steel cages in their vans to protect equipment and won't get insurance without it. Cost of tracking serial numbers over a blockchain is tiny by comparison, and using tech such as embedded RFID to store and serial numbers allows them to be checked extremely quickly and makes removal expensive. There is already a lot of money moving around here, quite a bit of which relates to theft which can be prevented by decimating illegal resale value. The impediment isn't the cost or technology, it is that the manufacturers have been slow to react as theft actually benefits them. Their hands are currently being forced by user demand in a competitive environment.

It's hardly groundbreaking - conscientious tradesmen will already record the serial numbers of their equipment. So the big breakthrough is to record it on blockchain instead of on a piece of paper or a PC. Will it prevent thefts, no. You're proposing some sort of annual audit to verify ownership which is ridiculous- the total cost of such audits would far far exceed the total cost of theft yet wouldn't prevent the thefts anyway.

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

Comments