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

I'm in the industry in so far as I work for a company who love to bang on about Blockchain along with other buzzwords. The technology has some potential but I don't think it will be as revolutionary as a lot of crypto heads do. At the end of a day a Blockchain is just a database that's distributed with some cryptographic verification baked in. I don't think anyone outside the industry would have heard of a Blockchain were it not for the crypto bubble. They're an interesting new tool but they're not going to change the world. (in my opinion of course!)

Deleted User wrote: »

What "serious people in the industry"..do you know anyone involved in development?..do you consider yourself a serious person in the industry?..do you think you might have a certain cognitive bias to still focus on the positive even after so much of it has been shown to be horsesh1t?

Take a breath because you're in rant mode here! Think about it. Whether you like it or not, it's a complete industry. There are people that work full time - whether in development or from the financial aspect, etc. If you worked professionally in an industry and some shysters came around and used some cover story that implicated the industry you work in to pull off a scam, would you like it? Surely you're not going to get me to prove this? It's logical.

Deleted User wrote: »

Looking at the tech..seems environmentally unsustainable..People seem to be creating problems for it to solve

Thats open to debate. If stranded power (google it) is used, who cares? There is also the argument that some have an issue with this because they see no value in crypto in the first instance. If we are going down that road, I don't believe in Christmas so could you please not hack a tree down this year and waste energy lighting it up!
That said, yes there are newer projects that dont have the energy usage overhead. Its too early to say - but perhaps they may come further to the fore.

Deleted User wrote: »

I have seen it suggested that it's putting the infrastructure into place for the A.I. to take over too..

Well, i don't know about 'take over' but if you think that A.I. technology is not being developed, then I'd suggest you google it. It's as much of a hot topic as blockchain/crypto.

Deleted User wrote: »

I dunno man, I hope you didn't get too burned

I have no complaints in that department.

Deleted User wrote: »

But, like, if there ever was going to be a future for it, there will be a new standard, that probably won't be some libertarian dream..probably just the opposite in fact..every purchase you make anywhere logged by the machine..

Yes, that's what the 'establishments'/governments want. The original cypherpunks would not be happy with the way things have turned out. However, I'd be satisfied if I have the opportunity to use decentralised blockchain on a day to day without having a bank or government dictate how I spend my hard earned money. That remains to be seen as governments are going to try to control this.

breadmond wrote: »

I'm in the industry in so far as I work for a company who love to bang on about Blockchain along with other buzzwords. The technology has some potential but I don't think it will be as revolutionary as a lot of crypto heads do. At the end of a day a Blockchain is just a database that's distributed with some cryptographic verification baked in. I don't think anyone outside the industry would have heard of a Blockchain were it not for the crypto bubble. They're an interesting new tool but they're not going to change the world. (in my opinion of course!)

You're quite right. At it's core, it's just a ledger and ledgers have been around since the year dot. However, two important aspects...

- It's immutable
- It's transparent

There's fraud in every industry. There are trust issues in every industry. Despite the simplicity at it's core, it can address these issues - meaning applications across almost every industry.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://coingape.com/tens-thousands-bitcoin-miners-shutting-down/amp/

Just came across this now..thought I'd post it here..this was always the thing..it costs what e1000 to e1500 to mine a bitcoin?..so what happens when it's not really worth the effort?

Difficulty adjustment?

sexmag wrote: »

Nah plenty of shysters out there,don't need another one here

I think in this case you mean 'shíté-stirrers'

I see a lot of comparisons block chain to the early internet days, if that is a generally accepted comparison then that means:

Crypto - bitcoin etc are simply the early dot com websites that mostly busted. The "tech" itself could be wonderful like the internet (don't see it being anywhere near as revolutionary to internet" but why does that mean I should ever buy these dog sh1t coins?

Just like you couldn't invest in the "internet" you can't invest in "blockchain" just applications around it, none of which turn a profit, have a function, have no essential / exclusive quality that would stop any corporation or bank from just doing their own version.

It's a long con when you think about it

I think we can all agree that what we are seeing is not being caused by retail investors getting sketchy and pissing the bed.
There simply is not enough of them/us to cause such volatility

there are big players/whales here manipulating the market and there is only one-of-two reason why imo..

1.) they are exiting the crypto scene with all the early 2018 FOMO money

2.) Its all co-ordinated FUD and they are bringing down the market to go again and make another killing

..I know which one I would go for.

TallyRand wrote: »

I see a lot of comparisons block chain to the early internet days, if that is a generally accepted comparison then that means:

Crypto - bitcoin etc are simply the early dot com websites that mostly busted.

Yup - and practically all here are in agreement that most altcoins will come to nothing. Sounds pretty similar to the dot com scenario from that point of view.

TallyRand wrote: »

why does that mean I should ever buy these dog sh1t coins?

Nobody is asking you to. Do as you see fit.

TallyRand wrote: »

It's a long con when you think about it

'Con'? Who is pimping this con? Nobody is selling this to you.

TallyRand wrote: »

Just like you couldn't invest in the "internet" you can't invest in "blockchain" just applications around it, none of which turn a profit, have a function, have no essential / exclusive quality that would stop any corporation or bank from just doing their own version.

It depends. If it's a company controlled blockchain then its not going to be truly decentralized regardless of what they claim. Of course, it depends on the application. There may be instances where full decentralization is not needed.

TheAnalyst_ wrote: »

Why should the coins be worth any more than they were 5 years ago? What has changed?

This is kind of my point @ makeorbrake in relation to your reply (can't mulitquote!)

Why should ANY value be attached to any coin? And why should it change other than pure punting?

Back to internet comparison, at the very least the dot com bubble websites had a utility. I do feel people are backing a coin when they want to back "the tech" and I don't see it working

Pussyhands wrote: »

And yet people were blowing their load over a potential SEC ETF and ripple getting partnerships with banks....hardly decentralisation..

You need to decouple the tech to an extent from the speculation. People were chasing the whole ETF thing as they saw it as a segway for institutional money - and therefore more demand for crypto - resulting in higher unit price.

Ripple I didnt touch on the basis that it wasn't decentralised and on the basis that they dilute the circulating volume in an instant. From the point of view of an opportunity, i've dropped my objection to the first one. Their customers (banks/financial institutions) don't give a monkeys about decentralisation. As the SWIFT system is akin to a banking cooperative, they've all been responsible for maintaining a system that could have been replaced donkeys years ago. But why do that when they're making fat wads of cash for something that could be done seamlessly? That said, they know the writing is on the wall and they'll have to update. That may be Ripple but Tallyrand's point, they could use their own version. In this instance, I agree. Where decentralisation isn't needed, then they can go their own way.

Even though Ripple was the only thing that held firm the last 10 days, it's still not a slam dunk that they will get the business. There are a couple of solutions emerging within the banking establishment.

What would be the advantage of running boards through a Blockchain rather than how it is run now? You can ask yourself the same question about most use cases and if all you can come back with is transparency or other wooly concepts then there's no business case for investing the time to migrate to a Blockchain. You could say that distributing the severs to the users would save money but why would I as a user agree to host part of boards on my machine for free when icanise it for free now without hosting anything.

Microsoft bought GitHub because it's become the standard way to collaborate on projects. I'm sure they have huge numbers of Blockchain projects at the moment because Blockchain is the new thing. In a couple of years it will have moved to something new. It's a very dangerous game to assume that just because Devs are working on something that it will be a success

breadmond wrote: »

What would be the advantage of running boards through a Blockchain rather than how it is run now?

I'm not convinced of a need in the case of boards.ie . However, the idea has been bandied about that with an online community running tokens, contributors could be rewarded based on quality contributions. Crypto can facilitate micro transactions where visa cant.
I guess the other angle is from a freedom of speech perspective. If a truly decentralised board was put up, nobody could take it down and nobody could change the information that was posted - that applies to all media.

breadmond wrote: »

You can ask yourself the same question about most use cases and if all you can come back with is transparency or other wooly concepts then there's no business case for investing the time to migrate to a Blockchain.

We're already beyond 'wooly concepts'. There's already industry collaboration across multiple industries. Take the supply chain - and by that i mean the supply chain in every industry. There is no system at present where stakeholders in a supply chain can be 110% guaranteed of the integrity of the raw materials and product fed through the supply chain with centralized systems. There is with blockchain based solutions.
That alone is huge.

The Shipping Industry : The paper based system is archaic and complex with paper based bills of lading. All of the largest container shippers on the planet right now are involved in some blockchain based pilot program or other. A number of ports also.

The Airline Industry : A long list of prominent airlines currently hooked in to a system related to a marketplace within the industry which, with blockchain, cuts out middlemen.

The Internet of Things (IoT) : An industry all of its own thats equally as ground breaking as blockchain. Blockchain will be implicated here as there will be a marketplace for the trillions of data points - which can be traded at a micropayment level visa cant handle.

The Automotive Industry : Volkswagen will go live with a product based on IOTA which facilitates over the air updates for one of it's cars in 2019. This could be done centrally but they want to ensure the integrity and security of the data.

Remittances: Cross border and cross currency transfers - on which we've been screwed over on for years. This implicates a shedload of $$ - although it remains to be seen...it could be that it will be done centrally yet (but you can thank blockchain for forcing those criminal bankers to move on from SWIFT at the very least!). That said, that's at an institutional level. There's still potential for us all to simply transact directly, peer to peer.

Crowdfunding : Can be taken to a global audience and overcome some regulatory and $ transfer issues.

Counterfeiting : The amount of counterfeit products floating about the world is immense. Blockchain solutions can be used to ensure the integrity of a product and record all stages in the lifecycle of a product and its raw materials all the way through to disposal.

Decentralized Storage Marketplace: To make use of all the free drive space around the world, compensate those that make it available and facilitate those who want to make use of it. Takes on the centralized services currently in existence such as AWS.

Traceability in terms of Aid: Huge amounts of money are allocated for aid in developing countries but never gets where it's meant to go. With blockchain, this can be traced.

Traceability in Government: This is where I'd like to see it implemented the most but it wont happen in my lifetime. There is no full accountability for where every penny is spent in this state or any state. There could be with blockchain - but we can forget the notion that turkeys will vote for christmas!

Blockchain based prescriptions: Already being trialled/piloted in China.


I'm only scratching the surface here. Some of these I can provide examples of real world use, some of multiple pilots/trials. Surely you can see the implications of the tech......