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.
It all sounds great, in theory. I'm more interested in how it works out in practice though.
I've gotten refunds for things like plane tickets in bitcoin too. Way easier than setting up bank stuff or proving mailing addresses for checks, or going through the hassle of having them pick your flights, etc.
These are all first world use cases though. I also keep Bitcoin in case of substantial problems. The financial system melting, war, discrimination, or political change that might threaten the life I lead.
It also gives me independence in a way you can't get anywhere else. The US uses it's status as the world's reserve currency to make a lot of political moves. The USD is a huge engine for pushing US agenda. Bitcoin operates outside of that, and this is something I find valuable, and it makes it easier for me to sleep at night.
Which airline refunds via BitCoin?
I assume that's only true for those willing to pay higher transaction fees. Otherwise, it seems the transaction backlog is growing again. 165,00 as of May 12.
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.
Here you are basically reiterating the metaphor "the blockchain is like the Internet was back in the day". Since that's what I was responding to, I already am familiar with the metaphor. Repeating it doesn't help me.
What I'm saying is that for the metaphor to be useful in terms of evaluating the commercial/societal impact of a technology, I want to see evidence of utility that is similar to what we could see for the early Internet.
So who do you believe the early vanguard is? Who is actually getting value? Who are the people previously isolated from global finance that are now making daily or at least weekly transactions?
I see you're already aware of M-Pesa, which is only a couple of years older than Bitcoin. But M-Pesa has, per CNN, "30 million users in 10 countries and a range of services including international transfers, loans, and health provision. The system processed around 6 billion transactions in 2016 at a peak rate of 529 per second." Bitcoin's numbers are orders of magnitude smaller, and it's my impression that it would be much smaller still if we subtracted the speculative transactions to match what people use M-Pesa for.
That startups exist doesn't prove anything about use. What I'm looking for is traction.
Now, regarding actual demand for blockchain assets (outside of speculation): Previous price rallies in 2016 were most likely caused by the Chinese as a method for capital flight ( http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-02/bitcoin-surges-abov... ). Another recent surge in ethereum prices was caused by more and more ICOs, which use ethereum as way to crowdfund their project. So those two I believe are currently the most important sources of demand: Tax evasion / capital flight and funds raising.
Yes, the Internet was delivering daily value in 1990, but only to a very, very small group of users. I was in grad school then, but the Internet was not a factor in my environment. Networking was carrying floppies from here to there.
Same thing with cryptocurrencies. It's delivering value to a small group of users, though that group is much more than the small group served by the Internet in 1990. Mining and trading in cryptocurrencies have millions for some, so it's serving them well.
The one group I have to admit is getting value from Bitcoin is criminals. E.g., it's the technology of choice for ransomware. But that just doesn't strike me as a use case that will help Bitcoin cross the chasm.
They created an artificial gold rush so they could sell shovels.
It's certainly possible that Bitcoin is like the Internet was in 1975. But at that point, they hadn't even invented TCP/IP, which came in '82. At that point, ARPANET was just one of many approaches to networking, including BITNET, Merit Network, Tymnet, and Telenet. Not to mention the circuit-switched networks that were probably dominant in revenue terms. It seems totally plausible to me that Bitcoin and/or blockchains could end up as a similar "people used it for a little while but it's hard to remember why" thing.
Or, worse, it could end up like the OSI protocol stack: a collection of exciting ideas that nobody ever really got working to deliver much value in the real world.
Well you could say the same about Bitcoin as it's current price comes from people willing to buy Bitcoin using their USDs.
If you're buying bitcoin because of some utility it offers you beyond speculation, the price doesn't really matter. You just exchange one monetary denomination for another and do whatever you plan to do with it.
When you buy something like an internet connection or any other good or service you perform a cost benefit analysis. For example, if internet connections were 100x their current price, many fewer people would have one.(And interestingly for a network like the internet, the higher the cost to access, the less users, and thus less useful because of the network effect.)
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 $$$.
It's very plausible that there could be a bubble, but just to give some context, the cryptocurrency market is valued at $68 billion dollars. The Bloomberg US Internet Index went from $2.948 trillion at its peak to $1.193 trillion. We are nowhere those types of valuations.
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.
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.
anybody know why this is generally relevant w.r.t the regulatory landscape around bitcoins ?
The actual representation of tokens as a uint256 variable in Solidity contract is not as sexy ;)
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.
I do not agree that denying help from others is a virtue.
Let's say you have health issues and need medical treatment that costs thousands of dollars, but you don't have them right now because of life circumstances. Wouldn't you agree that you would benefit from a government that pays for your medical treatment?
Or would you just say "Oh bad, didn't consider that. My fault, that I am fucked now. Well. That's life."