Is anyone else starting to become a bit excited?

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Bitcoin was going to be the disruptor, right? "Be Your Own Bank"? Yet you are quoting a fluff piece by the Chief Propagandists of the Evil Banksters to make a point? Jayzis, bitcoin, what has happened to you? :)

That's what it was to idealists, now it's hijacked. Can't scale, won't scale. Not sure why you're bringing BTC up though. I'm not a BTC maximalist so arguing against me as if I am one is brainless.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

All joking aside, there is absolutely nothing concrete in that pamphlet. Vague statements attached to isolated stats. 90% of respondents think blockchain will help with "data validation"??? HOW?

Uhm... Ethereum is a Virtual Machine. Data entry actions can be programmed into a contract which results in the automation of previously human tasks. Try to get a copy of Mastering Ethereum or read it on Andreas' github, the first third of the book will give a good overview of everything.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

And the only use 'blockchain' actually has - Time Stamping - attracts one of the lowest responses. I'd take Deloittes own advice at the end of that piece - Dont base any business decisions on this.

False! This really shows you haven't bothered reading up on Ethereum or anything else that's happened in the last 5 years. This is BTC's only enterprise use, as a notary or timestamp for programmable sidechains.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Other gems: Majority feel "private" blockchains are the future. Correct me if im wrong, but isnt a "private blockchain" a..... database?

Of course they're going to test with private and consortium chains first. A blockchain is a kind of database but a database can be easily edited without mass consensus. A blockchain being edited will require a majority of participants to approve, it's an improvement for catching potential fraud. When companies want to interact with other companies it would make more sense to be a part of the same network which is fraudproof vs trusting some private database or a private chain or a consortium chain which may have aggressive competitors attached who could refuse to sign your transactions.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

And what has anything in that report got to do with tokens or even bitcoin for that matter? How are you jumping the yawning gap between investing in your tokens and capitalising on all this "mass adoption of blockchain tech"? They seem pretty disjointed.

I don't know why you keep talking about Bitcoin. I'm not a fan of their current "roadmap".
If a company/organisation sees a need to use an public blockchain and it's used enough, that token/coin will be in demand. Routine data entry positions will become cheaper and faster - certain ones already have, else AXA wouldn't be be using fizzy live on mainnet. Look at that, previously human tasks being automated by a large company and they've decided to buy ETH to fuel it. And it's working. Live. Functioning. Serving customers with flight insurance and automatically paying out should the flight be cancelled, serving AXA with less human inefficiency and errors.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

grindle wrote: »

Fine to be wary, but 26kElephants is implying people who do read up on these things are stupid

Thats not correct

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Same goes for ETH: the ICO boom literally became its unique selling point. As long as token schemes can come up with plausible wheezes for the unwary, there will be demand for it. But a real world use case? Come on. Dont be stupid.

Mmhmm.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I have no ideal how Ethereum works, or what its supposed to do beyond some vague, fuzzy notion that it involves burning "gas" and "smart contracts" which have proved to be anything but smart in practice.

Oh right, so bugs make ideas worthless. Using an Intel cpu at any point since 2011? Turns out it's totally worthless because it has attack vectors.
Sheesh, Intel. Anything but smart. Try to be more like 26k here, he knows the things.

Go litecoin absolutely delighted!

Whelo79 wrote: »

Bakkt parent company ICE and the 58 cryptos they plan to list and track

https://www.investinblockchain.com/ice-parent-company-bakkt-58-crypto-list/amp/?fbclid=IwAR2up3FxCC0XY3g74nrlvjBTz3tlQHKBeq5zXfmYiuXud0cSJlx4UjmRQv0

I have a very, very, very serious thinly spread alt buying problem, I have a lot of them

grindle wrote: »

so arguing against me as if I am one is brainless.

Wow, this crypto thing has really sucked away all your sense of humour, hasn't it?

Uhm... Ethereum is a Virtual Machine. Data entry actions can be programmed into a contract which results in the automation of previously human tasks. Try to get a copy of Mastering Ethereum or read it on Andreas' github, the first third of the book will give a good overview of everything.

Nothing you have said there makes any sense to anyone who hasnt been sucked into the hopium fueled world of Crypto. Data entry as smart contract? Are you on crack?? Automated????? WHAAAAAAT? Why on earth do I need a smart contract to capture data? Anyway, "data validation", using the canonical meaning of the term, is a task that can be handled procedurally: capturing user data and validating is not something that needs global consesus, outside of a very few rare edge cases. The fact that so many mundane tasks that will never, in a million years, require smart contracts or global consesus to achieve, validate or verify are TOP of that list shows the #1 problem with blockchain: nobody really knows what the hell its about. Even CEO's of business. That pamphlet you cited (which mentions Bitcoin more often than it mentions Ethereum, so i have know idea why you are bitching about "why u bring up Bitcoin?") is a typical example of the kind of vague, fuzzy ideas about blockchain being put out there. Nothing concrete, nothing of substance, becuase in most cases, once you get into requirement gathering and more detailed functional design most of these schemes fall down. The original basis for saying "X, but with Blockchain!" falls apart, when you realise that there was never a need for blockchain in the first place. I have yet to come accross a design involving a blockchain-like component where we didnt design it out after a few weeks.

Case in point: A medical records project where a blockchain was going to be used to enforce a 2-of-3 signature where a patient, doctor and health care provider shared access keys to the patients records. On the surface it seemed a fabulous solution: decentralised, trustless verification of each participants key to access the records - no one party could steal data or deny access to another. However, early in the design process it became apparent that off the shelf security protocols could offer the exact same protection, without having to use any public (or private) blockchains. The inescapable fact was that participants in the relationship WANTED to trust one another - and would not work without it. Its hard to describe it unless you have been there, but once you see the shortcomings, you will never 'unsee' them.

False! This really shows you haven't bothered reading up on Ethereum or anything else that's happened in the last 5 years. This is BTC's only enterprise use, as a notary or timestamp for programmable sidechains.

maybe. i havent been that interested in Ethereum to be honest, as i said earlier. Adfter the DAO (LOL!) and the split (ROFL) and Silbert trolling you with Eth Classis for years, it was hard to take seriously. The rollback (CODE IS LAW!) and the moves to PoS, sharding and other stuff - meh. As much a Bitcoin is a madhouse run by lunatics intent on self-immolation, you have to admire the fact that its something you could (at one time anyway) buy stuff with.

Of course they're going to test with private and consortium chains first.

No. The article mentioned nothing about "testing". If you are going to pick and choose what you want to believe in that advertising flyer then we are wasting our time. Those guys were asked a question, and the majority said they were deploying private and permissioned blockchains. No need for tokens, coins, exchanges, etc.

Also, testnets tend to reflect the ultimate Mainnets, so you dont test a public blockchain with a private version, do you?

A blockchain is a kind of database but a database can be easily edited without mass consensus.

No. A database is as secure and immutable as you need it to be.

A blockchain being edited will require a majority of participants to approve, it's an improvement for catching potential fraud. When companies want to interact with other companies it would make more sense to be a part of the same network which is fraudproof vs trusting some private database or a private chain or a consortium chain which may have aggressive competitors attached who could refuse to sign your transactions.

There are very few business use cases where the overriding requirement is "If the majority in the deal want to randomly reverse or change a record for no reason, then they can" I seriously cannot think of any. Its one of the main reasons why, after 10 years of knocking around, the only large scale use cases are as a currency ledger (bitcoin) and some script-enabled state machine (Ethereum), where in both cases the overwhelming utility is "waiting until we are rich"

I don't know why you keep talking about Bitcoin. I'm not a fan of their current "roadmap".
If a company/organisation sees a need to use an public blockchain and it's used enough, that token/coin will be in demand. Routine data entry positions will become cheaper and faster - certain ones already have, else AXA wouldn't be be using fizzy live on mainnet. Look at that, previously human tasks being automated by a large company and they've decided to buy ETH to fuel it. And it's working. Live. Functioning. Serving customers with flight insurance and automatically paying out should the flight be cancelled, serving AXA with less human inefficiency and errors.

Fizzy is a good example, Lurent did well with it. But in reality, he does nothing more than my code does 150,000 times a day: takes bets, pays out on a win. Satoshi dice was doing this years ago. I heard Laurent speak once where he addmitted that the regulatory hurdles with offering insurance in this way meant that Fizzy had to be broken into 3 parts: Business works out your odds (risk), finance creates an invoice (price) and finally the web api creates the event. But the key thing is that the payment is not directly triggered by the contract. Its handled the exact same way as before (but quicker). So not quite the trustless, "code is law" thing you might think it is. Still interesting, though. But seems strangelly redundant: I can see a world in the near future where insurance companies will be allowed to operate purely in this manner, without regulation. So, its pretty moot.

Oh right, so bugs make ideas worthless. Using an Intel cpu at any point since 2011? Turns out it's totally worthless because it has attack vectors.
Sheesh, Intel. Anything but smart. Try to be more like 26k here, he knows the things.

Intel fixed the bug.

26000 Elephants wrote: »

Nothing you have said there makes any sense to anyone who hasnt been sucked into the hopium fueled world of Crypto. Data entry as smart contract? Are you on crack?? Automated????? WHAAAAAAT? Why on earth do I need a smart contract to capture data? Anyway, "data validation", using the canonical meaning of the term, is a task that can be handled procedurally: capturing user data and validating is not something that needs global consesus, outside of a very few rare edge cases. The fact that so many mundane tasks that will never, in a million years, require smart contracts or global consesus to achieve, validate or verify are TOP of that list shows the #1 problem with blockchain: nobody really knows what the hell its about. Even CEO's of business. That pamphlet you cited (which mentions Bitcoin more often than it mentions Ethereum, so i have know idea why you are bitching about "why u bring up Bitcoin?") is a typical example of the kind of vague, fuzzy ideas about blockchain being put out there. Nothing concrete, nothing of substance, becuase in most cases, once you get into requirement gathering and more detailed functional design most of these schemes fall down. The original basis for saying "X, but with Blockchain!" falls apart, when you realise that there was never a need for blockchain in the first place. I have yet to come accross a design involving a blockchain-like component where we didnt design it out after a few weeks.

Most banks, FMI and stock exchanges are diving at developing the tech because they see it as having immense potential in certain critical aspects of their systems

Much of the industry is still functioning on archaic linear processes that can't fundamentally change or speed up because they are interwoven with and limited by countless linear processes of the involved participants and players. It's like a digital version of the late 60's stocks papercrunch. Years/decades of programmers and data management teams slaving away for incremental gains in efficiency - and certain processes are still slow as hell. Yet they do a test-run (or live-run) on blockchain and distributed ledger tech and the whole thing runs smooth as butter, and has the potential to be much faster and do a lot more (with the same effort) Of course there's interest and a frenzy of development/projects/partnerships. On top of that no one want's a Kodak moment or to be blind-sided by competition that can do the same but with a fifth of the work-force

Don't want to jinx it, but pretty amazing, the market still holding onto these gains, top 6 coins are all up 30% to 50% on one month ago

grindle wrote: »

More blahblahblah because this bullshít talk is in the wrong thread.

Childish responses are a great tell for child-like understanding.

So let me get this right, the procedure here is:

1. Make silly claim about 'blockchain'
2. Get a counter-point
3. Respond with much breathy hand-waving and Andreas-speak, project own lack of real world understanding with weasel-words like "read up on this, bro, coz ya dont know, kay?"
4. Have transparent points soundly refuted.
5. WAAAAHI!!!


Gotcha!

26000 Elephants wrote: »

and Andreas-speak

What's 'Andreas speak'.