BITCOIN

User232002

I would think pointing out your hypocrisy is a pretty reasonable point.

Malthusian

IvanOpinion said:

I think the GDPR argument is a bit of a red herring.  Several companies that I am aware of (including one I work for) are looking to use blockchain technology for several different medical scenarios.  It boils down to the argument that when technology can bring benefits then legislation will be amended to incorporate it (has happened many times before and will happen many times in the future).  I (personally) do not see GDPR as anything other than a minor issue that will be resolved when required.

Governments aren't going to chuck out data protection regulations until blockchain comes up with a problem to solve. A big enough problem for which blockchain is a good enough solution that it merits reversing decades of progress in formalising individual ownership rights over personal data. So we go back to the same old problem. There isn't one. Or rather we haven't found one despite 12 years of desperate searching by bros who believe that when they find the problem, number go up and 40-foot gold catamaran.

Anyway, as I said in the original post, it is a red herring - because even if a use for blockchain is invented that overcomes these problems, the medical research firms will simply generate their own tokens to power it at near-zero cost, not pay some bros more than they paid for some existing tokens.

Aegis

darren232002 said:

I would think pointing out your hypocrisy is a pretty reasonable point.

I'll leave it to others to judge, as I don't value your opinion on the matter at all.

User232002

So first my opinion wasn't reasonable and that's why you weren't interested in discussion. And now, you don't value my opinion at all. Which is it? Perhaps conveniently the latter because you've conceded it was a reasonable point to make... 

You're continuing to post in a Bitcoin thread portraying yourself as someone who values contrary opinions whilst simultaneously dismissing anyone pro-crypto as 'poisoning the forum.' 

Imagine poisoning an investment forum by attempting to talk about the best performing investment of the last decade... 

Aegis

darren232002 said:

So first my opinion wasn't reasonable and that's why you weren't interested in discussion. And now, you don't value my opinion at all. Which is it? Perhaps conveniently the latter because you've conceded it was a reasonable point to make... 

You're continuing to post in a Bitcoin thread portraying yourself as someone who values contrary opinions whilst simultaneously dismissing anyone pro-crypto as 'poisoning the forum.' 

Imagine poisoning an investment forum by attempting to talk about the best performing investment of the last decade... 

I see you don't understand subtlety, so let me be explicit: I am not interested in talking to you any more.  Thanks.

Cus

Malthusian said:

IvanOpinion said:

I think the GDPR argument is a bit of a red herring.  Several companies that I am aware of (including one I work for) are looking to use blockchain technology for several different medical scenarios.  It boils down to the argument that when technology can bring benefits then legislation will be amended to incorporate it (has happened many times before and will happen many times in the future).  I (personally) do not see GDPR as anything other than a minor issue that will be resolved when required.

Governments aren't going to chuck out data protection regulations until blockchain comes up with a problem to solve. A big enough problem for which blockchain is a good enough solution that it merits reversing decades of progress in formalising individual ownership rights over personal data. So we go back to the same old problem. There isn't one. Or rather we haven't found one despite 12 years of desperate searching by bros who believe that when they find the problem, number go up and 40-foot gold catamaran.

Anyway, as I said in the original post, it is a red herring - because even if a use for blockchain is invented that overcomes these problems, the medical research firms will simply generate their own tokens to power it at near-zero cost, not pay some bros more than they paid for some existing tokens.

If there is a problem to solve, then it needs to be a problem that costs rich people/companies a lot of money. I think some payments, securities settlement, custody and transaction costs in the investment/financial markets world are dominated by a number of middlemen taking their cut. Those costs could be removed with market run regulated utilities using Blockchain tech.

Aegis

Cus said:

Malthusian said:

IvanOpinion said:

I think the GDPR argument is a bit of a red herring.  Several companies that I am aware of (including one I work for) are looking to use blockchain technology for several different medical scenarios.  It boils down to the argument that when technology can bring benefits then legislation will be amended to incorporate it (has happened many times before and will happen many times in the future).  I (personally) do not see GDPR as anything other than a minor issue that will be resolved when required.

Governments aren't going to chuck out data protection regulations until blockchain comes up with a problem to solve. A big enough problem for which blockchain is a good enough solution that it merits reversing decades of progress in formalising individual ownership rights over personal data. So we go back to the same old problem. There isn't one. Or rather we haven't found one despite 12 years of desperate searching by bros who believe that when they find the problem, number go up and 40-foot gold catamaran.

Anyway, as I said in the original post, it is a red herring - because even if a use for blockchain is invented that overcomes these problems, the medical research firms will simply generate their own tokens to power it at near-zero cost, not pay some bros more than they paid for some existing tokens.

If there is a problem to solve, then it needs to be a problem that costs rich people/companies a lot of money. I think some payments, securities settlement, custody and transaction costs in the investment/financial markets world are dominated by a number of middlemen taking their cut. Those costs could be removed with market run regulated utilities using Blockchain tech.

The problem you have is that this "problem" doesn't really affect the vast majority of people, whether you consider them rich or not.  Additionally, the power usage from multiple redundancies of blockchain solutions means that the cost isn't removed, it's just hidden somewhere else.  Centralised solutions have the advantage that they can be really efficient compared to distributed networks.

There certainly might be room for a hybrid, i.e. a partially distributed network with a few independent nodes, but you run into all the same issues you have with a single centralised network.

Really, I see blockchain as potentially very useful, but very much as a niche feature of something else, like international contracts.  Again, it feels like a great technological solution looking for a problem to solve.

User232002

Aegis said:

I see you don't understand subtlety, so let me be explicit: I am not interested in talking to you any more.  Thanks.

Cute. Lets avoid the unanswerable points by not answering. Do you work for the UK government by any chance?

Aegis said:

The problem you have is that this "problem" doesn't really affect the vast majority of people, whether you consider them rich or not.  

Yeah, nobody has a VISA / MC or AMEX card and pays 1-3% for every daily transaction they carry out. Countries don't spend tens of billions every year on actually printing physical cash. People pay vast sums of money for trusted middlemen to conduct transactions like solicitors, trustees and agents. 

Reducing the friction of the current payment system alone with cheaper tx fees and basic trustless systems is a few hundred billion in revenue. And that's the (very boring) tip of the iceberg in terms of use cases. EIB put 100M euro bonds on the blockchain - fully transparent and auditable by anyone with an internet browser. Bond market is a twenty trillion ish global market right there. Put the S&P500 on the blockchain whilst we are at it and stop all the RH/Citadel malarky (I have no interest in whether there were shenanigans or not, but an open blockchain makes it a lot more transparent).

Aegis said:

Additionally, the power usage from multiple redundancies of blockchain solutions means that the cost isn't removed, it's just hidden somewhere else.  

160 pages and nobody has mentioned environment nonsense before....

1. Relative energy use, not absolute energy use. The current financial infrastructure uses far more energy gettign people in to an office than a few blockchains would.
2. Blockchain mining can be concentrated around key renewable energy resources as they are buyers of last resort, which are vital to build out the infrastructure for renewable energy. A wind farm in Antarctica isn't much use to anyone, but if you let that wind farm support a blockchain it incentivises renewable energy generation around the globe in places it would not normally be initiated. 
3. Civilizations are measured on the Kardashev scale - more energy use is not a bad thing.

Aegis said:

Centralised solutions have the advantage that they can be really efficient compared to distributed networks.

1. They can be. They usually start out more efficient, but its hard to maintain it as the network grows. Pretty hard to find a successful country nowadays that has a centralised structure rather than a devolved one. Are they all wrong? Plenty of people in crypto right now working on how to make DAOs efficient as they scale.

2. Centralised solutions are more susceptible to corruption. Pretty big drawback when you're maintaining a database of money for example.

lozzy1965

darren232002 said:

dunstonh said:

Someone has fallen for the emperor's new clothes.

If, when faced with some real counter points against your line of thinking, you lack the ability to produce a coherent counter argument then perhaps it is you, not I, that has fallen for the emperors new clothes good sir.

lozzy1965 said:

EDIT:  Apologies - we're in danger of making this about BITCOIN, and there's a thread for that.

Fair point and if you want to continue this I'll reply over there. Just quickly though;

On point 2, I've said multiple times here that Bitcoin is not a currency. Seems odd to judge a cow by its inability to swim like a fish.

On point 3, you're conflating price with resistance to state attack. They are not the same. Throughout all the things that you mention, I could/can/would still be able to transfer 1 Bitcoin across the network just as I could now.

***** COPIED ACROSS FROM THE NFT THREAD *****
Surely BITCOIN is and was intended to be a currency.  Can't say I've read the White Paper, but that's my impression!
(I've never rated cows for precisely their poor swimming ability )

User232002

Perhaps intended to be. Perhaps not. Depends how much you want to go back and rehash 2009 and Satoshi/Finney comments. Facebook was built as a competitor hotornot.com and ended up becoming an advertising behemoth so intention isnt always important.

Either way, no Bitcoiner in their right mind today sees it as a currency and very few envisage a day where BTC is used in everyday transactions.