BITCOIN

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

Angry_Bear

Malthusian said:

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.

Very true, and I don't suggest for a minute that any decent company would be considering ignoring GDPR or patient confidentiality. More that using blockchain for security *might* present possible opportunities for investigation.

Malthusian said:

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.

Also very true (and agreed that the whole discussion isn't entirely relevant to the thread, even if I do find it fascinating), having read up for 30 red-hot seconds on it, creating their own token appears to be key to any proposal.

eskbanker

Malthusian said:

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.

Genuine anonymisation can be applied to take such data outside the remit of GDPR - https://ico.org.uk/media/1061/anonymisation-code.pdf has 108 pages on the subject....

mooneysaver

I'm a long term holder and I'll keep on holding, but let's be real. The Dev's words have no meaning anymore. Imminent doesn't mean anything, there have been multiple exchanges, interviews and projects announced, but never followed up upon. The roadmap has changed and changed and has barely ever been reached. The Dev's hype things up, just for it to fall flat or for it to slowly fade away until people forget about it.

Whatever happened to mandala, satoshi interview, tv interviews, papa's video, the 2 exchanges supposedly listing now, other exchanges teased, space integration stuff. There are plans for banking the unbanked, windmills, exchange, blockchain, IOT, PHOENIX and more, but they are still empty promises that are yet to have any information or substance behind them. I'm not saying they won't happen, but these are all things that were mostly worked on by a team who claimed they were working on a once in a lifetime project that is the next evolution of crypto and a Godsend blessing to all of us, yet all but one of them left the project. The devs claim to be transparent, but they really aren't. If December ends up being a flop and the big reveal is something stupid then I will start to get worried.

Ok. I'm done ranting. Here's to hoping Safemoon really is the next big thing. Oh and before you flame me as only the Safemoon army can, I'm just trying to have a conversation. I'm still in green and quite happy with my investment so far. I'm just worried about this project which I care about so much.

Thrugelmir

silvercue said:

But then Gold has no real value other than the value we attribute to it.  There are similarities to be drawn there, yet gold has not collapsed (yet).  

Various industrial uses for gold include:

• Electronics and electronic components
• Computers, memory chips
• Dental fillings
• Medical treatments
• Space vehicles, space circuitry (conductor, connector, mechanical lubricant)
• Glass production

IvanOpinion

Thrugelmir said:

silvercue said:

But then Gold has no real value other than the value we attribute to it.  There are similarities to be drawn there, yet gold has not collapsed (yet).  

Various industrial uses for gold include:

• Electronics and electronic components
• Computers, memory chips
• Dental fillings
• Medical treatments
• Space vehicles, space circuitry (conductor, connector, mechanical lubricant)
• Glass production

You are very much underestimating the value of block chain.  It provides a lot of 1's and 0's and you cannot do maths without 1's and 0's - so the possibilities are endless