BITCOIN

spnego

The main way would be through the exchanges since most you have to use kyc to withdraw or add fiat and all the transactions coming between your account on the exchange to a particular wallet may indicate ownership. 

lozzy1965

Scottex99 said:

Little snapshot of just DeFi things:

https://defipulse.com/

And also posting this again, anyone with half an open mind should give it a watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5TqlnD1ZSI

Just watched it all.  I have more than half an open mind and I'm less convinced after watching that film that bitcoin, and more precisely, non government backed crypto currency, has a future.  Blockchain yes.  A very exciting prospect, but the chance of investing in the right one is a little like the chance of picking the right company in the dot com boom.  It's like the wild west or any gold rush at the moment.

Scottex99

Yeah wasn't posted to try to convince anyone of anything, I just think it's very nicely done. Obviously its Pro coin but does show some of the other side too.

People can just start with BTC and ETH and go as deep as they like. Or not.

Technically we're still early, plenty of time to have a good stab at who/what the best projects will be

Angry_Bear

Zola. said:

IvanOpinion said:

Section62 said:

Makes me wonder when someone else will come along claiming Bitcoin can cure cancer.  Although I've got a feeling if I put those words into google I'll find someone has put forward that idea already.....

Waves hand Not bitcoin, but one of the companies I work for is looking at ways the block chain can be leveraged to make it easier to mine data in relation to determining patterns in relation to the treatment of cancer.  I see huge value and understand blockchain technology but, as it stands at the minute, crypto currency is far too early in its evolution to be of mainstream use.

Curious to know how a blockchain could provide value here? The entire purpose of "blockchain technology", which was created in bitcoin is to record indisputable and cash final payments. Nothing else.

Mine data? Please tell me what you mean by that?! 

Data-mining is when massive amounts of digital information is analysed (using various clever techniques) for patterns, trends etc. to generate new information. I would speculate that secure availability of medical information is a major stumbling block in applying such techniques to research into treatment efficacy, and blockchain could potentially be considered as a solution.

lozzy1965

Funnily enough I didn't find it Pro coin in its entirety (if by "coin" you mean "currency"?). 
One of the things that came out of the film for me, near the end they talk about block chain allowing people to more easily invest in certain projects which - there was so much in the film I may be mis-quoting here - but for example buying a 'share' in sustainable energy projects and getting a direct share of the income produced.  Maybe blockchain is the future of share ownership! 
This is the Bitcoin thread (as I keep pointing out) but the trouble is that this, and the Crypto thread you - Scottex99 - quite rightly started, frequently end up emphasising the "Currency" part of "crypto currency".  I'm sure many of the open minded posters on here can see a potential benefit for blockchain.  The arguments come when we start talking about overthrowing long established currencies and the world financial order with an (unnecessary?) replacement (in danger of turning this thread into another conspiracy theory thread - you can thank me for that when posts start getting funny again!).  
Early on the film is very much about the currency aspect, but currency seems to me to be quashed about 1/3rd in.  Not necessarily as unviable, but as not actually solving the issues it sets out to solve (as implied near the end of the film when the creators maintain control of and therefore power over their creations - fine while they maintain their philosophy or remain in control, but the next 'boss' may have different motivations).
A very interesting watch though, so thanks for posting.

lozzy1965

Funnily enough I didn't find it Pro coin in its entirety (if by "coin" you mean "currency"?). 
One of the things that came out of the film for me, near the end they talk about block chain allowing people to more easily invest in certain projects which - there was so much in the film I may be mis-quoting here - but for example buying a 'share' in sustainable energy projects and getting a direct share of the income produced.  Maybe blockchain is the future of share ownership! 
This is the Bitcoin thread (as I keep pointing out) but the trouble is that this, and the Crypto thread you - Scottex99 - quite rightly started, frequently end up emphasising the "Currency" part of "crypto currency".  I'm sure many of the open minded posters on here can see a potential benefit for blockchain.  The arguments come when we start talking about overthrowing long established currencies and the world financial order with an (unnecessary?) replacement (in danger of turning this thread into another conspiracy theory thread - you can thank me for that when posts start getting funny again!).  
Early on the film is very much about the currency aspect, but currency seems to me to be quashed about 1/3rd in.  Not necessarily as unviable, but as not actually solving the issues it sets out to solve (as implied near the end of the film when the creators maintain control of and therefore power over their creations - fine while they maintain their philosophy or remain in control, but the next 'boss' may have different motivations).
A very interesting watch though, so thanks for posting.

Adyinvestment

I find the whole "crypto currency" term very misleading.

Bitcoin is pretty much the only non government one (at the moment) with any chance of this, and I think most people in the space see it as a store of value.

The vast majority of all the other major players have real use in the world and are attempting to grow their business and scale.

If the whole space was renamed "digital assets" or similar a large amount of arguments would go away.

Scottex99

Yep digital or crypto assets should really be it. Once people get into the space they generally see paste the whole currency thing. Although not for people like Roger Ver etc as seen by the film.

@lozzy1965 yep by pro coin, I mean pro crypto. Dunno why I said it like to confuse things haha.

Malthusian

Angry_Bear said:

Data-mining is when massive amounts of digital information is analysed (using various clever techniques) for patterns, trends etc. to generate new information. I would speculate that secure availability of medical information is a major stumbling block in applying such techniques to research into treatment efficacy, and blockchain could potentially be considered as a solution.

Storing private medical data on a blockchain, "anonymised" or not, is a non-starter under the GDPR (EU or UK), as it violates the rule that data should be held only for a valid purpose and no longer than necessary. Data on a blockchain can never be deleted which immediately breaks that rule.

Essentially the idea that blockchain could somehow make more data available to medical researchers amounts to "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we just forgot all those boring old rules about patient confidentiality and data protection". If a research team is struggling to obtain enough patient data it is for a simple reason - people aren't very keen to volunteer it, and the databases of existing medical data held by the NHS and other bodies are quite rightly regarded as even more sacrosanct than your credit card data or your Facebook pictures of your family beach holiday.

But that's not even the real problem from the point of view of this thread. The real problem is if some research company finds a reason to put medical data on a blockchain and overcomes the above problems, they will simply create their own token to power it for near-free, not buy an existing one off a load of bros so they can get rich quick.

lozzy1965 said:

One of the things that came out of the film for me, near the end they talk about block chain allowing people to more easily invest in certain projects which - there was so much in the film I may be mis-quoting here - but for example buying a 'share' in sustainable energy projects and getting a direct share of the income produced.  

Investing in a sustainable energy project and having it recorded on duh blockchain, achieving exactly the same thing as selling shares and recording ownership on investment platforms and Companies House but with massively more carbon emissions, is the very epitome of an inefficient non-GDPR-compliant solution looking for a problem.

lozzy1965

Malthusian said:

Angry_Bear said:

Data-mining is when massive amounts of digital information is analysed (using various clever techniques) for patterns, trends etc. to generate new information. I would speculate that secure availability of medical information is a major stumbling block in applying such techniques to research into treatment efficacy, and blockchain could potentially be considered as a solution.

Storing private medical data on a blockchain, "anonymised" or not, is a non-starter under the GDPR (EU or UK), as it violates the rule that data should be held only for a valid purpose and no longer than necessary. Data on a blockchain can never be deleted which immediately breaks that rule.

Essentially the idea that blockchain could somehow make more data available to medical researchers amounts to "hey, wouldn't it be cool if we just forgot all those boring old rules about patient confidentiality and data protection". If a research team is struggling to obtain enough patient data it is for a simple reason - people aren't very keen to volunteer it, and the databases of existing medical data held by the NHS and other bodies are quite rightly regarded as even more sacrosanct than your credit card data or your Facebook pictures of your family beach holiday.

But that's not even the real problem from the point of view of this thread. The real problem is if some research company finds a reason to put medical data on a blockchain and overcomes the above problems, they will simply create their own token to power it for near-free, not buy an existing one off a load of bros so they can get rich quick.

lozzy1965 said:

One of the things that came out of the film for me, near the end they talk about block chain allowing people to more easily invest in certain projects which - there was so much in the film I may be mis-quoting here - but for example buying a 'share' in sustainable energy projects and getting a direct share of the income produced.  

Investing in a sustainable energy project and having it recorded on duh blockchain, achieving exactly the same thing as selling shares and recording ownership on investment platforms and Companies House but with massively more carbon emissions, is the very epitome of an inefficient non-GDPR-compliant solution looking for a problem.

GDPR is a good point.  Not entirely sure that I don't see a benefit for certain projects with blockchain-like share ownership.  It seemed like a good use case the way it was portrayed in the film.
As with all new things - I know it's been around for 12 years - but it's still new - I'm sure uses will come out of it that no one can see right now