While the market capitalization grew from 20 billion usd, close to 70 billion this year alone, I think the big growth will start next year, when some of these technologies will reach the production ready phase.
As a technologist, I wouldn't forgive it to me, in say 10 years, that I didn't tried to ride the blockchain train if it becomes mainstream.
Despite the limited options and the slowness of my 28k baud modem, the internet in '95 still fulfilled my needs for entertainment, communication and socialization. Blockchain today doesn't fulfill any human needs.
I am more than happy to disagree with that. Bitcoin is a monetary system that is fully independent of any existing financial system, and it's super robust. It's a great hedge against the existing financial system.
It offers permanent, irreversible settlement in under an hour, with payments to anywhere in the world. It offers irreversible logging and time-stamping, in a way that is programmatic and accessible. People are using this today, every day and gaining value out of it.
It's money that you can own without anyone realizing that you have it. Including oppressive governments. It's money that can't be seized. It's money that can't be censored. You balance can't be frozen because PayPal wants to run an investigation, or found some tiny ToS violation.
Bitcoin has a huge amount of value that a lot of people are actively making use of. If you can't see that, it's either because you don't understand, or because you are outside the group of people who benefit from this truly unique money.
I keep asking this about Bitcoin, et al. For 6 years I've been getting, "Oh, it's just about to take off! You'll see soon!"
The Internet was definitely delivering value daily by 1990. It wasn't just a technological curiosity. Email, Usenet, mailing lists, file transfer, remote computing: all providing the sort of benefits that let researchers and academics justify paying to connect up.
I think cryptocurrencies and blockchains are technologically neat, and I appreciate them on that level. But neat technology doesn't always end up being useful.
I think one of the really good applications of blockchain technology, is to build a system superior to DNS: https://ens.domains/ The names are assigned in automated way, based on the highest bid. The name auction is run by a piece of code (which you can see here: https://github.com/ethereum/ens/blob/master/contracts/HashRe...). All domain name businesses (like Godaddy) could be automated away by a piece of code. That seems powerful to me.
Blockchains are useful for an extremely limited set of circumstances. They enhance trust at extreme throughput and expense. If you can solve trust almost any other way, its better. disclaimer, I'm long as fuck bitcoin, however I know that it's still risky, and has a rather unaddressed lists of vulnerabilities in it's wiki, and has very limited use cases beyond emergent ponzi value.
That being said, creating a digital scarcity to act as functional proxy for human productivity, thus money, is hampered by every new shitcoin. Digital scarcity can be ruined for a couple decades, and every new shitcoin enhances that negative outcome. Utility before pump and dump please.
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Provider | $/GB/Month | $/GB |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage | 0.5¢ | 2¢ |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Amazon S3 Storage | 2.1¢ | 5¢ |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Microsoft Azure Cloud Storage | 2.2¢ | 5¢ |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Google Cloud Storage | 2.6¢ | 8¢ |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+
| Storj | 1.5¢ | 5¢ |
+-------------------------------+------------+------+This seems contradictory to me. Anyone can create a cryptocurrency like Bitcoin. If people exercising that ability hurts scarcity, is there really any scarcity in the first place?
It sounds like you want to simulate scarcity through a gentleman's agreement, but it's not clear why the the creators of these "shitcoins" would cooperate.
Thus, it's amazing that digital scarcity is working at all, it was tried and failed before with Chaumian cash, this one is working, but it could driven to failure be endless fragmentation, or at least slowed greatly. Speaking a common language is great. Fungibility is great.
If you are building awesome tech, do it, you don't need a "new" token to side step fundraising regulations. This idea that you can avoid securities law by offering securities but calling them "coins" is pretty silly.
- coinlist homepage
Because there isn't enough speculation in the space already. Wonder when this bubble pops?
The pitch must have been something like "did you know that there are over 800 coins listed on Coin Market Cap and that 795 of them are nothing more than vehicles for speculation. What if...what if we created a platform which allowed us to launch the next line of speculation?"
The person in the meeting who asked about practical use and societal benefit got overruled pretty quickly because all the VCs saw was $$$.
But no, you see, they are worried about SEC compliance. Aren't you glad VCs are looking out for your interests?
Are any of these reasonable to actually use at this point? It looks like siacoin doesn't actually allow for true backups yet. Filecoin hasn't launched. Haven't looked into storj much yet.
Based on the Filecoin announcement, they are building something very similar to Sia. It appears to depart from traditional Bitcoin proof-of-work consensus though. I'm looking forward to reading their whitepaper.
Disclaimer: I'm one of the co-founders of Sia.
I was also wondering if siacoin is LN compatible. Can you speak to that? It looks like there is something similar up, but will I be able to pay for storage with any other LN compatible coin?
I'd have loved to see the value of coins like these that are supposed to provide a specific economic utility have their value essentially determined by it. For instance you could simply mint new bitseconds * mining efficiency each time that someone issues a proof of storage over a given time period. This way the value of bitseconds shouldn't never go above the real price for storage over time.
Obviously you'd need to set the mining efficiency below 1 to encourage people to actually store user files, or else it'd always be more profitable to just store for the mining rewards.
[1]https://blog.ethereum.org/2014/08/16/secret-sharing-erasure-...
https://coinlist.co/about/help/investors/2
They require you to be an accredited investor. For those who don't know what it is:
It's the single biggest reason why rich become richer and the rest stay the same. In short, you have to have at least $200k yearly income (per individual) or $1M liquid net worth in order to be an accredited investor according to SEC.
I hate so much this regulation! Just because of some retarded voters can't realize risks they taking, the rest must be out of all sweet deals angels and VCs are making.
What the government tells you: stay where you are or invest in crappy index fund and it takes you about 23 years to get $1M if you invest $1000 each single month and every single year index grow 10% which never happens by the way.
I'm so so glad that first time in history the government forgot to put their heavy hand and I had a chance to invest in Ripple before Google Ventures did. So now, for the first time in my entire life, I'm enjoying the same rate of grow as Google Ventures and Andreessen Horowitz.
So folks enjoy the crypto-party, dance till music stops!
It won't last long before the government with support from leftists impose new regulations when a few retards lose their money in obviously scammy ICOs.
If they are so stupid to buy a million dollar home without even having income (NINJA loans), it doesn't mean I must be out of all possible deals I can make.
And yes, by sharply increasing the barrier of entry, the government effectively standing in the way of me of making a fortune!
I'm not saying that I definitely make a fortune if there is no such requirement. I'm saying my chances would be significantly better (by the way, it doesn't imply that chances would be big, it's would be just better).
Unlike leftists, I never asking any help from the government. I never dare to think that rich owe me money! I never dare to blame the government if I lose my money in risky investment!
May be I'm sound aggressive but unlike leftists I'm super peaceful since I don't think anybody owe me anything!
I just want the government leave me alone.
The actual representation of tokens as a uint256 variable in Solidity contract is not as sexy ;)
In addition, if I understand it correctly, they are developing a way of making investing in the development of new protocols into securities that ordinary people can buy, instead of raising funds from VC's.
https://protocol.ai/blog/protocol-labs-creating-new-networks...
anybody know why this is generally relevant w.r.t the regulatory landscape around bitcoins ?