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

smacl · 18-08-2018 11:50AM

kaymin wrote: »

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.

You don't need any annual audit. Storing serial numbers on a blockchain provides large scale decentralised proof of ownership. You go to buy a 2nd hand item, you check proof of ownership. You go to list an item on a market site, you need to provide proof of ownership. You take a piece of equipment onto a site, you provide proof of ownership. This isn't exactly rocket science, nor is it particularly expensive. You simply need to embed the serial number in such a way that replacing it is expensive (remember removing it serves no purpose), RFID is one simple, inexpensive and robust mechanism here but there are others. For very low end equipment something as simple as a barcode would work. It is worth remembering that those involved are paying large multiples of the cost here in insurance already, not to mention down-time when equipment does get stolen.

As for annual audits of equipment being ridiculous, most companies over a certain size already so this. This typically involves placing asset tags on any company owned property above a certain value and scanning it as part of an equipment audit / stock take.

smacl · 18-08-2018 12:16PM

kaymin wrote: »

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.

Wrong. On any large tunnelling job, including Crossrail, calibration and servicing certificates for equipment coming onto site do get checked which includes proof of ownership, i.e. serial numbers against operating staff. Equipment gets specified early on and can't be substituted. What (and who) you can bring onto site and use in these jobs is very restricted for obvious reasons. Same goes for any site where the cost of an error during construction would become hugely magnified or even catastrophic down the line. Tunnels, large structures, rail, bridges, etc... FWIW, Health and safety on a large infrastructural project includes health and safety of all the users of that piece of infrastructure for its entire lifetime. The recent disaster in Genoa illustrates why this is critical, and why more stringent QA is being adopted across the construction sector in recent years. While you might be ok with a tradesman showing up to your door with knock-off equipment, the same is no longer true on large construction projects.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 03:49PM

smacl wrote: »

Wrong. On any large tunnelling job, including Crossrail, calibration and servicing certificates for equipment coming onto site do get checked which includes proof of ownership, i.e. serial numbers against operating staff. Equipment gets specified early on and can't be substituted. What (and who) you can bring onto site and use in these jobs is very restricted for obvious reasons. Same goes for any site where the cost of an error during construction would become hugely magnified or even catastrophic down the line. Tunnels, large structures, rail, bridges, etc... FWIW, Health and safety on a large infrastructural project includes health and safety of all the users of that piece of infrastructure for its entire lifetime. The recent disaster in Genoa illustrates why this is critical, and why more stringent QA is being adopted across the construction sector in recent years. While you might be ok with a tradesman showing up to your door with knock-off equipment, the same is no longer true on large construction projects.

Sorry but 'serial numbers against operating staff' is not proof of ownership. The rest of what you say I'm sure is true but irrelevant.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 03:57PM

smacl wrote: »

You don't need any annual audit. Storing serial numbers on a blockchain provides large scale decentralised proof of ownership. You go to buy a 2nd hand item, you check proof of ownership. You go to list an item on a market site, you need to provide proof of ownership. You take a piece of equipment onto a site, you provide proof of ownership. This isn't exactly rocket science, nor is it particularly expensive. You simply need to embed the serial number in such a way that replacing it is expensive (remember removing it serves no purpose), RFID is one simple, inexpensive and robust mechanism here but there are others. For very low end equipment something as simple as a barcode would work. It is worth remembering that those involved are paying large multiples of the cost here in insurance already, not to mention down-time when equipment does get stolen.

As for annual audits of equipment being ridiculous, most companies over a certain size already so this. This typically involves placing asset tags on any company owned property above a certain value and scanning it as part of an equipment audit / stock take.

Most companies keep track of their equipment - that is not an audit though which is a check that assets exist / are owned by an independent party.

I just don't see what you're proposing take off - it requires the purchaser to care that the seller has proper title (it is possible to seek proof of ownership currently but who ever does it except with qr sales) for the owner to go to the trouble of registering it on blockchain - most people don't even register their purchase in order to activate the warranty.

smacl · 18-08-2018 04:44PM

kaymin wrote: »

Sorry but 'serial numbers against operating staff' is not proof of ownership. The rest of what you say I'm sure is true but irrelevant.

It is as good as proof, in that the use of the equipment serial no X is logged as being used by contractor Y on a given date by site engineering staff. If the equipment is stolen, calibration or servicing certs forged, the contractor is going to be in breach of contract and a world of trouble. If the equipment is stolen, trying to get it calibrated and serviced is going to raise alarm bells. The risk simply isn't worth the reward for most companies and the level of equipment theft is already that high that using stolen equipment is highly risky. Where blockchain comes into play is that you can amalgamate a huge number of proprietary blacklists of stolen goods into a single open system that can be trusted and easily accessed. Currently, stolen equipment tends to leave the country to avoid detection. If any potential buyer for a good can quickly and easily check whether an item they're considering buying is logged as stolen, they will do so and the stolen item becomes difficult to sell. Once a system like this is in place, there is no reasonable defence for being in possession of stolen property and it thus massively devalues return versus risk for theft.

smacl · 18-08-2018 05:00PM

kaymin wrote: »

I just don't see what you're proposing take off - it requires the purchaser to care that the seller has proper title (it is possible to seek proof of ownership currently but who ever does it except with qr sales) for the owner to go to the trouble of registering it on blockchain - most people don't even register their purchase in order to activate the warranty.

People don't seek proof of ownership in many transactions currently as it is difficult to do and the risk of being done for receipt of stolen goods is tiny. If it was easy to do, and easy for anyone else to check whether an item in your possession was stolen, movement of stolen goods for any item that could carry an immutable serial number would likely collapse.

As for a purchaser not caring, I think you're deluding yourself. Most people wouldn't knowingly buy stolen goods, and those that would only do so on the basis that there is little risk attached in doing so. Increase that risk and few would take it. Worth remembering that buying stolen goods is a criminal offence.

Irish Statute Book wrote:

Where a person has in his or her possession stolen property in such circumstances (including purchase of the property at a price below its market value) that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 05:09PM

smacl wrote: »

It is as good as proof, in that the use of the equipment serial no X is logged as being used by contractor Y on a given date by site engineering staff. If the equipment is stolen, calibration or servicing certs forged, the contractor is going to be in breach of contract and a world of trouble. If the equipment is stolen, trying to get it calibrated and serviced is going to raise alarm bells. The risk simply isn't worth the reward for most companies and the level of equipment theft is already that high that using stolen equipment is highly risky. Where blockchain comes into play is that you can amalgamate a huge number of proprietary blacklists of stolen goods into a single open system that can be trusted and easily accessed. Currently, stolen equipment tends to leave the country to avoid detection. If any potential buyer for a good can quickly and easily check whether an item they're considering buying is logged as stolen, they will do so and the stolen item becomes difficult to sell. Once a system like this is in place, there is no reasonable defence for being in possession of stolen property and it thus massively devalues return versus risk for theft.

There's a number of problems with what you're suggesting, for example, heavy machinery will increasingly be lent out via platforms such as Dozer. The user is not always and probably rarely is the owner.

Everything you've said indicates the focus of the main contractor is H&S and quality control, not ownership.

Since ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked, blockchain which proves ownership is unlikely to see much traffic.

A better use case of Blockchain is settlement of investment trades, custody of investments, dividend settlements, share register maintenance etc. Is any crypto in the loop for this in a way that could justify its market cap?

kaymin · 18-08-2018 05:18PM

smacl wrote: »

As for a purchaser not caring, I think you're deluding yourself. Most people wouldn't knowingly buy stolen goods, and those that would only do so on the basis that there is little risk attached in doing so. Increase that risk and few would take it. Worth remembering that buying stolen goods is a criminal offence.

People don't care enough to check ownership which can currently be readily done by requesting/ checking receipts etc before purchasing.

Pussyhands · 18-08-2018 05:48PM

So let's say thief coin does what you say it does.

Why can't a manufacturer just put a chip into every piece of equipment they manufacturer that can't be hacked and edited without the owner editing it?

smacl · 18-08-2018 05:51PM

kaymin wrote: »

There's a number of problems with what you're suggesting, for example, heavy machinery will increasingly be lent out via platforms such as Dozer. The user is not always and probably rarely is the owner.

Everything you've said indicates the focus of the main contractor is H&S and quality control, not ownership.

Since ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked, blockchain which proves ownership is unlikely to see much traffic.

A better use case of Blockchain is settlement of investment trades, custody of investments, dividend settlements, share register maintenance etc. Is any crypto in the loop for this in a way that could justify its market cap?

Again wrong. Heavy equipment theft is estimated at a billion dollar per annum problem, where equipment tracking through a national register is an often touted solution (source). Other than heavy plant, theft of industrial construction equipment and measurement tools such as scanners, total stations and GPS is a massive problem. I've been to three conferences this year already where it was the subject of a presentation (e.g.). Ownership is being checked increasingly regularly at a number of different levels as other anti-theft measures are failing. This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated. Among my own client base I'm seeing reports of such theft most weeks with recovery rates quite low and re-insurance crippling. To say that ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked shows a total ignorance of this industry.

smacl · 18-08-2018 06:03PM

Pussyhands wrote: »

So let's say thief coin does what you say it does.

Why can't a manufacturer just put a chip into every piece of equipment they manufacturer that can't be hacked and edited without the owner editing it?

This already happens and results in multiple closed lists of stolen equipment being poorly maintained by manufacturers who actually benefit from the theft as it typically results in a replacement sale. If you go for a blockchain solution it is open and vendor neutral, such that it serves the owner of the equipment rather than the manufacturer. You have a black chain entry associated with the piece of equipment that is only re-assigned when the item is sold and can only be re-assigned by the current owner. Most records in asset tracking systems boil down to who, what, where, when. Who owns it, what is it, where was it when. Make that record immutable and open for a large scale system and you solve quite a large number of related problems.

JohnnyFlash · 18-08-2018 06:55PM

smacl wrote: »

This already happens and results in multiple closed lists of stolen equipment being poorly maintained by manufacturers who actually benefit from the theft as it typically results in a replacement sale. If you go for a blockchain solution it is open and vendor neutral, such that it serves the owner of the equipment rather than the manufacturer. You have a black chain entry associated with the piece of equipment that is only re-assigned when the item is sold and can only be re-assigned by the current owner. Most records in asset tracking systems boil down to who, what, where, when. Who owns it, what is it, where was it when. Make that record immutable and open for a large scale system and you solve quite a large number of related problems.

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

grindle · 18-08-2018 07:16PM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

If the coin gains traction and demand outstrips liquid supply, price goes up. If opposite, price goes down.

If you want to actually use the coin yourself then buy as cheap as you can and think of it as a bulk discount for the future if the price shoots up. If you just want to hoard the coin like most speculators you're adding to the upwards price pressure. The cost of the service will stay the same in fiat but become cheaper in terms of coin spent if bought when the coin was cheap.

e.g. There's an ICO for ShítcoinFlash for $1 per token. New entrants that buy ETH for this terrible sounding ICO are paying $1 so at current prices they get 289 tokens per ETH. If a user bought ETH @ $10 their effective cost per ShítcoinFlash is $0.035.
If you buy a good idea early you get to benefit from demand outstripping liquid supply.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 07:54PM

smacl wrote: »

Again wrong. Heavy equipment theft is estimated at a billion dollar per annum problem, where equipment tracking through a national register is an often touted solution (source). Other than heavy plant, theft of industrial construction equipment and measurement tools such as scanners, total stations and GPS is a massive problem. I've been to three conferences this year already where it was the subject of a presentation (e.g.). Ownership is being checked increasingly regularly at a number of different levels as other anti-theft measures are failing. This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated. Among my own client base I'm seeing reports of such theft most weeks with recovery rates quite low and re-insurance crippling. To say that ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked shows a total ignorance of this industry.

You explain that theft is a big problem as if i'm disputing that fact . Im not. Can you stick to the point being discussed rather than argue some strawman i.e whether proof of ownership is something that is currently being checked on an ongoing basis and whether Blockchain and crypto could play a part in this.

You state that 'This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated' - what does this mean in the context of checking title? Sounds like they're just doing a regular service

kaymin · 18-08-2018 08:03PM

grindle wrote: »

If the coin gains traction and demand outstrips liquid supply, price goes up. If opposite, price goes down.

If you want to actually use the coin yourself then buy as cheap as you can and think of it as a bulk discount for the future if the price shoots up. If you just want to hoard the coin like most speculators you're adding to the upwards price pressure. The cost of the service will stay the same in fiat but become cheaper in terms of coin spent if bought when the coin was cheap.

e.g. There's an ICO for ShítcoinFlash for $1 per token. New entrants that buy ETH for this terrible sounding ICO are paying $1 so at current prices they get 289 tokens per ETH. If a user bought ETH @ $10 their effective cost per ShítcoinFlash is $0.035.
If you buy a good idea early you get to benefit from demand outstripping liquid supply.

This is where I'm confused - why couldn't / wouldn't heavy industry participants just create their own coin to run the title verification Blockchain at minimal cost to maintain i.e. the coins collected might be counted up at the end of the year and used to reduce the next years subscription cost (their share of the cost of maintaining the register) it could be facilitated / operated by the CIF.

Granted there is set up costs and expertise involved but it would be a tiny percentage of the cost of crypto coins currently being traded.

smacl · 18-08-2018 08:38PM

kaymin wrote: »

You state that 'This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated' - what does this mean in the context of checking title? Sounds like they're just doing a regular service

Manufacturers and their service partners tend to maintain blacklists of equipment reported stolen. A piece of kit comes of for servicing, its serial number gets checked against this list and acted on if shows positive. It is a very weak solution compared to a blockchain, as it depends on maintaining multiple databases across numerous vendors, not to mention the goodwill of all involved. As already pointed out the best interests of the manufacturer and their customers are not that well aligned here. You seem to be struggling to grasp something pretty basic here.

smacl · 18-08-2018 08:44PM

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

In addition to what Grindle has already covered, in this scenario you essentially need a coin / ledger entry for every physical piece of equipment covered and gas / transaction charge for every change of ownership. Value is in the use case, which is where it should be.

grindle · 18-08-2018 08:52PM

kaymin wrote: »

This is where I'm confused - why couldn't / wouldn't heavy industry participants just create their own coin to run the title verification Blockchain at minimal cost to maintain i.e. the coins collected might be counted up at the end of the year and used to reduce the next years subscription cost (their share of the cost of maintaining the register) it could be facilitated / operated by the CIF.

Maybe they set up their own private blockchain because that's "good enough" for their needs but it seems they should stick with a standard database if they don't want it to be decentralised and trustworthy - the point of a blockchain is verifiable truth. CIF running a node might be trustworthy to CIF but when that equipment needs to be sold and/or moved from their jurisdiction why would anybody trust their chain/node?

kaymin wrote: »

Granted there is set up costs and expertise involved but it would be a tiny percentage of the cost of crypto coins currently being traded.

Not sure what you mean here. Let's say IOTA matures enough for this usecase, they become decentralised, etc etc - CIF or Suir Engineering or whomever may want to use this to track their crap don't have to buy and spend whole units of MIOTA to use it every time something is scanned, they'll get 1 million uses out of 1 single MIOTA with current supply and that supply will have a kind of stock split should IOTA's price rise too high for micro txs to be feasible whereby owners get 10 or 100 units per 1 pre-fork.

I'd hazard a guess that if some company wanted to set this up it would be easier and cheaper for them buy their RFID tags & scanners and incorporate an existing project (that will hopefully some day be decentralised and fully trustworthy) rather than buying all that same equipment, hiring a niche blockchain dev to upkeep their fork. Blockchain dev = megabucks and the more niche the chain the higher that cost will be - which devs familiar with IOTA development and implementation would be capable enough AND willing to accept anything less than a couple hundred thousand per year? Or more.
Having one dev working on this private blockchain sounds like security suicide, they will make mistakes that will prove costly so now you need a team of devs to test your blockchain who'll want a shítload of money from this company or organisation which used to have too much money on their hands because they thought running a private chain would be easier than buying some tokens currently valued @ $0.49 ( :eek: holy crap thank christ I sold that) which grants them a million uses.

kaymin · 18-08-2018 11:21PM

smacl wrote: »

Manufacturers and their service partners tend to maintain blacklists of equipment reported stolen. A piece of kit comes of for servicing, its serial number gets checked against this list and acted on if shows positive. It is a very weak solution compared to a blockchain, as it depends on maintaining multiple databases across numerous vendors, not to mention the goodwill of all involved. As already pointed out the best interests of the manufacturer and their customers are not that well aligned here. You seem to be struggling to grasp something pretty basic here.

I'm not buying it. If I leave my car, lawnmower, motorbike in for a service, noone checks ownership or the serial number and that's also the case with the vast vast majority of heavy machinery. If I called up this crowd, for example, to ask if they check ownership of the machines / trucks they service I'd say I'd be laughed at.
http://fjsplant.ie/about

kaymin · 18-08-2018 11:30PM

grindle wrote: »

Maybe they set up their own private blockchain because that's "good enough" for their needs but it seems they should stick with a standard database if they don't want it to be decentralised and trustworthy - the point of a blockchain is verifiable truth. CIF running a node might be trustworthy to CIF but when that equipment needs to be sold and/or moved from their jurisdiction why would anybody trust their chain/node?

Not sure what you mean here. Let's say IOTA matures enough for this usecase, they become decentralised, etc etc - CIF or Suir Engineering or whomever may want to use this to track their crap don't have to buy and spend whole units of MIOTA to use it every time something is scanned, they'll get 1 million uses out of 1 single MIOTA with current supply and that supply will have a kind of stock split should IOTA's price rise too high for micro txs to be feasible whereby owners get 10 or 100 units per 1 pre-fork.

I'd hazard a guess that if some company wanted to set this up it would be easier and cheaper for them buy their RFID tags & scanners and incorporate an existing project (that will hopefully some day be decentralised and fully trustworthy) rather than buying all that same equipment, hiring a niche blockchain dev to upkeep their fork. Blockchain dev = megabucks and the more niche the chain the higher that cost will be - which devs familiar with IOTA development and implementation would be capable enough AND willing to accept anything less than a couple hundred thousand per year? Or more.
Having one dev working on this private blockchain sounds like security suicide, they will make mistakes that will prove costly so now you need a team of devs to test your blockchain who'll want a shítload of money from this company or organisation which used to have too much money on their hands because they thought running a private chain would be easier than buying some tokens currently valued @ $0.49 ( :eek: holy crap thank christ I sold that) which grants them a million uses.

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

Pintman Paddy Losty · 18-08-2018 11:32PM

kaymin wrote: »

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

Pipe dream is right kaynin. These lads are living in crypto cuckoo land.

grindle · 18-08-2018 11:40PM

kaymin wrote: »

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

I don't get the analogy tbh - IOTA are providing a product for use which is their network, for cheap. The market cap being some stupid valuation doesn't really come into it, they just have to have a working product that transfers data securely without fault and if it's cheaper and/or more convenient than the company's current method of tracking their inventory it'll be used.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Pipe dream is right kaynin. These lads are living in crypto cuckoo land.

Constructive criticism or don't bother please.

kaymin · 19-08-2018 12:09AM

grindle wrote: »

I don't get the analogy tbh - IOTA are providing a product for use which is their network, for cheap. The market cap being some stupid valuation doesn't really come into it, they just have to have a working product that transfers data securely without fault and if it's cheaper and/or more convenient than the company's current method of tracking their inventory it'll be used.

Isn't IOTA is just fee free, coinless version of Blockchain?

The point is, ownership of machinery is rarely checked so why would you think everyone would jump onboard a Blockchain or tangle or whatever to start verifying ownership of equipment that crosses their path?

grindle · 19-08-2018 12:46AM

kaymin wrote: »

The point is, ownership of machinery is rarely checked so why would you think everyone would jump onboard a Blockchain or tangle or whatever to start verifying ownership of equipment that crosses their path?

I worked for Suir Engineering when they were hooking Vistakon up and every item not typical to a toolbox had to be signed in and out by us with a guy there whose job it was to verify who was taking what and some apprentice who had to fill in for him when he was on a break - I dunno if that kind of shít has changed or how it's changed but it seems easier to have RFID tags on workers and on tools to do the job.

It's not necessarily just about transferring from owner 1 to owner 2, it's more likely to be about keeping track of your own stock as an asset for your financial reports with less scope for somebody slyly robbing without a human noticing.

makeorbrake · 19-08-2018 02:38AM

TallyRand wrote: »

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

Rubbish. We are all plugged in to the FIAT world as you and I and everyone else knows. You realise the reason why Bitcoin was created? If you don't - google it.

We bailed out banks here. You speak of capitalism. No problem (crypto is a very very broad church but socialist isnt really what most of them are). Where was the capitalism in the U.S. in 2008-9, in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere when it came to the banks??

Is our current governance better than what went before? In some ways, definitely. Does it have shortcomings - of course it does. Is it right or wrong to look at addressing some of those shortcomings? The shortcomings crypto is trying to solve (and it has wider implications than just core financial/currency aspects) relate to trust - the abuse of trust - and unless you put something in the water, you're unlikely to change the way human beings behave in this respect. You can take another approach though and put an immutable ledger in place that is decentralised and assumes NO TRUST. Crypto should be open to critique like anything else - and with it being an emerging field of course it has plenty of issues to clear up if it's to have an impact. However, a lot of the sledging is coming from those with a vested interest or latent ignorance.

Your point is completely different to what you quoted me on. You're basically saying if you like crypto so much, why dont you push off and ilve off it full time. I will use it given every opportunity but I'm pragmatic - not a 'true believer'....but the extreme views are very much on BOTH sides of the debate!

ninebeanrows · 19-08-2018 02:47AM

How low can cryptos go?

I think ether 50$ is within 3 months and bitcoin standard price in the 500-750$ range.

makeorbrake · 19-08-2018 03:06AM

Weathercheck wrote: »

How low can cryptos go?

I think ether 50$ is within 3 months and bitcoin standard price in the 500-750$ range.

Its all entirely speculative. However, how have you arrived at those figures? I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong but interested to know what moulded your opinion.

el diablo · 19-08-2018 03:55AM

makeorbrake wrote: »

Its all entirely speculative. However, how have you arrived at those figures? I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong but interested to know what moulded your opinion.

I'd also like to hear the reasoning (if any) behind these bizarre predictions. I think both ETH and BTC will go lower but I'm 100% certain we won't see those levels. :cool:

Pintman Paddy Losty · 19-08-2018 07:27AM

grindle wrote: »

Constructive criticism or don't bother please.

Apologies. Was on the gargle last night. Posting when I shudda been sleeping.

JohnnyFlash · 19-08-2018 10:51AM

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Apologies. Was on the gargle last night. Posting when I shudda been sleeping.

I put in a savage session myself on Friday night, Paddy. Drank 13 pints on Guinness. Still not right.

Must be why I’m still struggling to get the idea behind coin ownership and what it gives the investor. Say some bunch of Chinese buckos create Livercoin. The white paper is a bit vague, but they say this coin will become the main way on the planet for applying for a liver transplant. I have a savage few days on the drink, and decide I better stick me name on a list for a new liver. The blockchain has been decided as the extremely inefficient way to store me application.

So I log into some website, fill out the application form, and hit submit. Good stuff. The world now has a completely non refutable record of my application for a new liver. But the part I don’t get is what benefit that gives to shrewd and canny investors who bought these coins belonging to this company, and why holding on to them so they increase in value would be of benefit to them. Like what relationship has my application for a new liver have to them being able to buy a Lambo at some stage? Why would the coin increase in value because I made a new liver application?

Like I said, I’m as thick as two short planks, so hoping one of the crypto gurus here might break that down into simple language so dunces like meself and Paddy can understand. Vague auld stuff like ‘inherent utility’ and ‘price of gas’ doesn’t really sink in with me.

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

Comments