The atmosphere on Cryptsy chat is pretty serious. Users are actively seeking coins to bolt with. I just made a withdrawal of 90 NOTE.*
And my Dnotes wallet will shortly be synched, ready to receive the withdrawal if it happens.
So, any Dnoter who establishes that Dnotes can still be pulled from Cryptsy may reasonably go on the chat there, and say so.
Mark
EDIT: came through in literally five minutes. Have posted on Cryptsy chat.
*I bailed on Cryptsy a fortnight ago, but I had enough scraps left to get hold of 90 NOTE.
Topic: [ANN][NOTE]DNotes - Celebrating DNotes 3rd Birthday - Forum Now Open - page 104. (Read 814547 times)
December 11, 2015, 08:06:32 PM
December 11, 2015, 12:55:54 PM
spot price UNO
that's how i do it ... i think we can find a stable metric.
(keep in mind one is low inflation so that's the scale i'm on) ((under 4 coins per day))
granted the other (NOTE) has superior market cap.
that's how i do it ... i think we can find a stable metric.
(keep in mind one is low inflation so that's the scale i'm on) ((under 4 coins per day))
granted the other (NOTE) has superior market cap.
Yeah, I know where you are coming from, in 2016 we should be in position to start overcoming it.
It would be nice if we had a tool to make those conversions, for all coins and pairs. But in the same sense I like those pairs could take on their own identity and market. I do encourage everyone to be active in the UNO/NOTE pair.
December 11, 2015, 12:20:54 PM
spot price UNO
that's how i do it ... i think we can find a stable metric.
(keep in mind one is low inflation so that's the scale i'm on) ((under 4 coins per day))
granted the other (NOTE) has superior market cap.
that's how i do it ... i think we can find a stable metric.
(keep in mind one is low inflation so that's the scale i'm on) ((under 4 coins per day))
granted the other (NOTE) has superior market cap.
December 11, 2015, 11:24:06 AM
At the end of the day, NOTE is an intel network, so respect and hats off.
Don't forget your NOTE/UNO pairing, signals within
Don't forget your NOTE/UNO pairing, signals within
Thanks BitcoinNational.
I've been checking the Cryptopia markets. It takes a bit of time to figure out what the price of each market should be compared to the BTC markets (or by dollar value). The easiest way for me is to go to coinmarketcap, get the dollar price of each:
NOTE: 0.007568
UNO: 2.14
2.14 / .007568 = 282.76955602537
1 / 282.76955602537 = 0.0035364485981308
So the UNO price per NOTE should be: 0.00353645
Is that how you guys do it? Is there an easier way?
December 11, 2015, 10:35:31 AM
At the end of the day, NOTE is an intel network, so respect and hats off.
Don't forget your NOTE/UNO pairing, signals within
Don't forget your NOTE/UNO pairing, signals within
December 11, 2015, 10:29:08 AM
Bitcoin Weekly Recap 12-11-2015
New Info May Hold Clue to Satoshi Nakamoto’s Real Identity.
Wright’s Home Raided by Australian Police.
New German Survey Shows Little Confidence in Bitcoin among CEOs.
Debate Thriving at Hong Kong’s Scaling Bitcoin Conference.
Gavin Andresen Calls for Segregated Witness Implementation.
Bitcoin Foundation Reportedly Running Short of Money.
http://dcebrief.com/bitcoin-weekly-recap-12-11-2015/
New Info May Hold Clue to Satoshi Nakamoto’s Real Identity.
Wright’s Home Raided by Australian Police.
New German Survey Shows Little Confidence in Bitcoin among CEOs.
Debate Thriving at Hong Kong’s Scaling Bitcoin Conference.
Gavin Andresen Calls for Segregated Witness Implementation.
Bitcoin Foundation Reportedly Running Short of Money.
http://dcebrief.com/bitcoin-weekly-recap-12-11-2015/
December 11, 2015, 07:55:19 AM
The Dawn of the Profitable Unicorn
This is a must read for anyone interested in long term investment in technologies. There are very few profitable unicorns and they are highly dismissive at the early stages. If you only discovered the opportunity when everybody knows it’s a unicorn, you already missed your best opportunity.
Major success in business does not happen by accident or by good fortune alone. A great idea is worth practically nothing unless that great idea can be become a great product or a great service that is in high demand. It takes four critical components to build a solid base to enable a great idea to become a huge success: you, your great idea, your employees, and your customers. Any short comings in any of them will degrade everything else and bring your total score down and you will not be the best in class.
“Most investors in technology companies squander vast sums by reacting to short term jitters or global jolts rather than concentrating on the staying power of those emerging enterprises on the right side of history.”
This is my favorite quote from the article. High burn rate at the early stages will not only “squander vast sum of money” but will also squander staying power. It takes great patience and discipline to breed a large scale successful company – “a rare form of species known as the profitable unicorn.”
***************************************************
The Dawn of the Profitable Unicorn
Dec 11, 2015
• 1,823 views
• 38 Likes
Michael Moritz
Chairman, Sequoia Capital
The San Francisco-based buyout firm Francisco Partners recently published a delicious analysis relevant for anyone wondering about what the future holds for technology stocks. It is a bulletin in which both pessimists and optimists can find hope and it offers a helpful perspective for those wondering about the current valuations of technology companies.
First, the bad news. The 15 technology companies with the largest market capitalizations in 2000 have been decimated — losing about $1.35 trillion, or roughly 60 per cent, of their combined market value.
Only one, Microsoft, has a market capitalization that is higher than in 2000. One extraordinary aspect of this meltdown is that it did not occur, as some might suspect, in the much ballyhooed dotcom wonder companies of yesteryear. Instead it was a blight that affected most of what were once considered blue-chip technology holdings.
In 2000 Nortel sported a market value of $209 billion that, like those of its classmates, had been bloated by the enthusiasm of the era; it has since gone bankrupt. While other members of this corporate bracket have avoided that ignominy, their long-term stock charts present bleak pictures. Cisco’s market value has faded from $403 billion to $144 billion; Intel’s from $288 billion to $161 billion; and EMC’s from $218 billion to $51 billion.
For the class of 2000, the sharpest property price declines have been in the deteriorating neighborhoods of systems, hardware and semiconductors. This is due to the continuing decline in the cost of computing, the rise of open-source software, the move to the “cloud” and the emergence of massive data-centers where companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook are increasingly designing their own approaches.
Now a word from sunnier climes. Fifteen companies that were together worth less than $10 billion in 2000 are now among the world’s 50 top technology companies as measured by market capitalization, with a combined worth of $2.1 trillion. (Had Amazon been included, rather than being classified as a retailer, this number would have swollen by another $250 billion). Apple, which even in 2000 was viewed as little more than a curiosity, has risen in value from $6 billion to $659 billion. A few themes jump out of this listing — the power of novelty, the shift towards China, the benefits of patience and the virtues of capital efficiency.
Several of today’s most valuable technology companies did not even exist in 2000. Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter together have a collective corporate history of only 33 years. Even Google and SalesForce were barely smudges on the horizon in 2000. These companies now have a combined value of about $850 billion. Beyond some of the customized systems in their own data centers and, in Google’s case some sideline activities such as its Nexus phones and Chrome notebooks, none of these companies sully their hands with anything as taxing as hardware. They have thrived from the artful deployment of software, in particular the “cloud based” variant, and — for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter (and Google’s YouTube service) — organizing and collating the contributions of their users.
Perched in a clump as the fourth, fifth and sixth most valuable technology companies of the day — are Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu. This threesome is now worth $409 billion — testament not just to how much China has progressed in a decade and a half but a harbinger of the next several decades as the country places increasing emphasis on spawning its own technology.
Woe betide the management of any western technology company that underestimates the challenge posed by the vast number of emerging Chinese competitors — fueled by an ambition and work regimen that’s hard to match in Europe and the US.
Finally, a note about two other themes that jump out of this listing — patience and profits. Most investors in technology companies squander vast sums by reacting to short term jitters or global jolts rather than concentrating on the staying power of those emerging enterprises on the right side of history.
And for the founders and chief executives of all of today’s billion-dollar “unicorns” there is another abiding message. Almost all of today’s technology juggernauts formed before about 2008 required smallish amounts of capital. Google, for example, only consumed $8 million before turning profitable. Maybe this means that a new, and very distinctive, class of company will now come into vogue — a rare form of species known as the profitable unicorn.
This article originally appeared on the opinion page of The Financial Times.
Source:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dawn-profitable-unicorn-michael-moritz
This is a must read for anyone interested in long term investment in technologies. There are very few profitable unicorns and they are highly dismissive at the early stages. If you only discovered the opportunity when everybody knows it’s a unicorn, you already missed your best opportunity.
Major success in business does not happen by accident or by good fortune alone. A great idea is worth practically nothing unless that great idea can be become a great product or a great service that is in high demand. It takes four critical components to build a solid base to enable a great idea to become a huge success: you, your great idea, your employees, and your customers. Any short comings in any of them will degrade everything else and bring your total score down and you will not be the best in class.
“Most investors in technology companies squander vast sums by reacting to short term jitters or global jolts rather than concentrating on the staying power of those emerging enterprises on the right side of history.”
This is my favorite quote from the article. High burn rate at the early stages will not only “squander vast sum of money” but will also squander staying power. It takes great patience and discipline to breed a large scale successful company – “a rare form of species known as the profitable unicorn.”
***************************************************
The Dawn of the Profitable Unicorn
Dec 11, 2015
• 1,823 views
• 38 Likes
Michael Moritz
Chairman, Sequoia Capital
The San Francisco-based buyout firm Francisco Partners recently published a delicious analysis relevant for anyone wondering about what the future holds for technology stocks. It is a bulletin in which both pessimists and optimists can find hope and it offers a helpful perspective for those wondering about the current valuations of technology companies.
First, the bad news. The 15 technology companies with the largest market capitalizations in 2000 have been decimated — losing about $1.35 trillion, or roughly 60 per cent, of their combined market value.
Only one, Microsoft, has a market capitalization that is higher than in 2000. One extraordinary aspect of this meltdown is that it did not occur, as some might suspect, in the much ballyhooed dotcom wonder companies of yesteryear. Instead it was a blight that affected most of what were once considered blue-chip technology holdings.
In 2000 Nortel sported a market value of $209 billion that, like those of its classmates, had been bloated by the enthusiasm of the era; it has since gone bankrupt. While other members of this corporate bracket have avoided that ignominy, their long-term stock charts present bleak pictures. Cisco’s market value has faded from $403 billion to $144 billion; Intel’s from $288 billion to $161 billion; and EMC’s from $218 billion to $51 billion.
For the class of 2000, the sharpest property price declines have been in the deteriorating neighborhoods of systems, hardware and semiconductors. This is due to the continuing decline in the cost of computing, the rise of open-source software, the move to the “cloud” and the emergence of massive data-centers where companies such as Amazon, Google and Facebook are increasingly designing their own approaches.
Now a word from sunnier climes. Fifteen companies that were together worth less than $10 billion in 2000 are now among the world’s 50 top technology companies as measured by market capitalization, with a combined worth of $2.1 trillion. (Had Amazon been included, rather than being classified as a retailer, this number would have swollen by another $250 billion). Apple, which even in 2000 was viewed as little more than a curiosity, has risen in value from $6 billion to $659 billion. A few themes jump out of this listing — the power of novelty, the shift towards China, the benefits of patience and the virtues of capital efficiency.
Several of today’s most valuable technology companies did not even exist in 2000. Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter together have a collective corporate history of only 33 years. Even Google and SalesForce were barely smudges on the horizon in 2000. These companies now have a combined value of about $850 billion. Beyond some of the customized systems in their own data centers and, in Google’s case some sideline activities such as its Nexus phones and Chrome notebooks, none of these companies sully their hands with anything as taxing as hardware. They have thrived from the artful deployment of software, in particular the “cloud based” variant, and — for Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter (and Google’s YouTube service) — organizing and collating the contributions of their users.
Perched in a clump as the fourth, fifth and sixth most valuable technology companies of the day — are Alibaba, Tencent and Baidu. This threesome is now worth $409 billion — testament not just to how much China has progressed in a decade and a half but a harbinger of the next several decades as the country places increasing emphasis on spawning its own technology.
Woe betide the management of any western technology company that underestimates the challenge posed by the vast number of emerging Chinese competitors — fueled by an ambition and work regimen that’s hard to match in Europe and the US.
Finally, a note about two other themes that jump out of this listing — patience and profits. Most investors in technology companies squander vast sums by reacting to short term jitters or global jolts rather than concentrating on the staying power of those emerging enterprises on the right side of history.
And for the founders and chief executives of all of today’s billion-dollar “unicorns” there is another abiding message. Almost all of today’s technology juggernauts formed before about 2008 required smallish amounts of capital. Google, for example, only consumed $8 million before turning profitable. Maybe this means that a new, and very distinctive, class of company will now come into vogue — a rare form of species known as the profitable unicorn.
This article originally appeared on the opinion page of The Financial Times.
Source:
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/dawn-profitable-unicorn-michael-moritz
December 10, 2015, 05:03:12 PM
North Carolina Exempts Select Bitcoin Businesses from Regulation
North Carolina has carved out regulatory exemptions for select bitcoin and blockchain businesses in a move industry supporters say avoids problematic provisions in place in other US states.
In a substantial update to its money transmitter FAQ page, the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (NCCOB) has exempted digital currency miners; non-financial blockchain services; and multi-signature and non-custodial wallet providers from the state's Money Transmitters Act (MTA).
Notably, the exemptions are the result of collaboration between the NCCOB and industry advocacy group the Chamber of Digital Commerce, which worked with law firm BuckleySandler LLP and government relations consulting firm Gide on the initiative.
The NCCOB had previously supported a legislative bill that would have covered bitcoin and digital currency related business activities.
As noted by the CDC and its partners, the decision by North Carolina to instead collaborate directly with industry stakeholders contrasts with efforts like New York’s state-specific licensing regime, the BitLicense, which was enacted earlier this year.
BuckleySandler counsel Amy Kim said in a statement:
"These FAQs are quite remarkable as they define specific activities as falling outside the scope of the regulation, which very well may serve as a template for other state interpretations."
In addition to the exemptions, the agency specified that digital currency transmission is regulated under the MTA, as are virtual currency "exchangers and administrators" depending on their business model.
"An exchanger that sells its own stock of virtual currency is generally not considered a virtual currency transmitter under the NC MTA. In contrast, an exchanger that holds customer funds while arranging a satisfactory buy/sell order with a third party, and transmits virtual currency and fiat currency between buyer and seller, will typically be considered a virtual currency transmitter," the FAQ page reads.
...
http://www.coindesk.com/north-carolina-exempts-bitcoin-regulation/
North Carolina has carved out regulatory exemptions for select bitcoin and blockchain businesses in a move industry supporters say avoids problematic provisions in place in other US states.
In a substantial update to its money transmitter FAQ page, the North Carolina Office of the Commissioner of Banks (NCCOB) has exempted digital currency miners; non-financial blockchain services; and multi-signature and non-custodial wallet providers from the state's Money Transmitters Act (MTA).
Notably, the exemptions are the result of collaboration between the NCCOB and industry advocacy group the Chamber of Digital Commerce, which worked with law firm BuckleySandler LLP and government relations consulting firm Gide on the initiative.
The NCCOB had previously supported a legislative bill that would have covered bitcoin and digital currency related business activities.
As noted by the CDC and its partners, the decision by North Carolina to instead collaborate directly with industry stakeholders contrasts with efforts like New York’s state-specific licensing regime, the BitLicense, which was enacted earlier this year.
BuckleySandler counsel Amy Kim said in a statement:
"These FAQs are quite remarkable as they define specific activities as falling outside the scope of the regulation, which very well may serve as a template for other state interpretations."
In addition to the exemptions, the agency specified that digital currency transmission is regulated under the MTA, as are virtual currency "exchangers and administrators" depending on their business model.
"An exchanger that sells its own stock of virtual currency is generally not considered a virtual currency transmitter under the NC MTA. In contrast, an exchanger that holds customer funds while arranging a satisfactory buy/sell order with a third party, and transmits virtual currency and fiat currency between buyer and seller, will typically be considered a virtual currency transmitter," the FAQ page reads.
...
http://www.coindesk.com/north-carolina-exempts-bitcoin-regulation/
December 10, 2015, 03:35:54 PM
This article states that "faking trade invoices “is the primary and measurable means for shifting funds out of developing countries illicitly,” and accounts for 83% of fraud in developing countries over the last decade. Could blockchain technology put an end to this? Check out the pile of cash seized in drug busts!
Fraud, Theft and Money Laundering Totaled $1.1 Trillion in 2013, Says Report
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/4700-fraud-theft-and-money-laundering-totaled-1-1-trillion-in-2013-says-report
That is interesting. Chances are, criminals will always find a way around the existing systems, but paper money will always be better for criminal activity and digital currency and blockchain technology would make it more difficult for criminals to go unnoticed.
December 10, 2015, 03:03:34 PM
This article states that "faking trade invoices “is the primary and measurable means for shifting funds out of developing countries illicitly,” and accounts for 83% of fraud in developing countries over the last decade. Could blockchain technology put an end to this? Check out the pile of cash seized in drug busts!
Fraud, Theft and Money Laundering Totaled $1.1 Trillion in 2013, Says Report
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/4700-fraud-theft-and-money-laundering-totaled-1-1-trillion-in-2013-says-report
December 10, 2015, 02:54:04 PM
That is a great article Evander. That is a very gloomy picture of the future (if you don't have bitcoin or DNotes) - I hope we have a softer landing, but everyone should still prepare for the worst.
Op-Ed Why Gold Will Become Digital in the Future to Compete with Bitcoin
"Without a trusted paper money anymore, unemployment is at all-time highs, and crime has increased many fold. Those without proper technical skills are replaced with computer and automation, vastly expanding the poor’s population out of control. Many banks have closed down, and wealth is where you find it. Just walking the streets is a major crime risk, as the citizens have become desperate for anything of value to trade in barter.
However, just like the advent of cable television and the Internet have vastly dissolved public interest in basic television stations of yore, The People are migrating toward sound money economics, and Bitcoin has gone viral. Gold values are rising tens of thousands of dollars, annually, but it is not as useful, in the real world. Gold faces consistent problems it cannot overcome, by design.
People with gold bars are forced to transport these valuable objects through crime-ridden streets to jewelers and refineries that can cut them down into coins. The problem is gangs, thieves, and the poor proletariat monitor traffic in and out of known gold establishments, making robbery a constant high risk. Many owners are not attacked at the store, but are followed to their home, or are attacked later on. Similar issues face those who use gold coins at merchants, who do accept them. Even some merchants tip-off local gangsters, through coercion, or their own pursuit of precious metal. The act of using physical Gold is dangerous, to say the least."
http://dcebrief.com/op-ed-why-gold-will-become-digital-in-the-future-to-compete-with-bitcoin/
December 10, 2015, 12:17:30 PM
Very interesting read with some compelling arguments. Evander is a great story teller. I hope he is only partially correct. That would be a tough world to live in. I am more optimistic and believe that fiat currencies will survive for another century. Meanwhile Bitcoin and other digital currencies, like DNotes will supplement fiat currency at a growing ratio. I do agree that gold bar has a serious disadvantage of not being easily divisible, unlike digital currency. Inherently, it is not efficient to serve the movement of money and transfer of wealth.
December 10, 2015, 11:02:20 AM
At this second:
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
i have like a month for differents crypto chats and forums reading alerts about cryptsy .... all kind of rumors about bankrupt, legally closing for licenses, that they maniputale trading register, bla bla bla...
Nothing of this happen trully in cryptsy almost for the moment, if anyone have trusted news about this please share.
and yeah its good chance toy buy the anual bag for your retirement plan this year
Or for holiday gifts
There is a lot of arbitrage opportunities for those that don't believe Cryptsy is going down.
December 10, 2015, 07:33:22 AM
At this second:
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
i have like a month for differents crypto chats and forums reading alerts about cryptsy .... all kind of rumors about bankrupt, legally closing for licenses, that they maniputale trading register, bla bla bla...
Nothing of this happen trully in cryptsy almost for the moment, if anyone have trusted news about this please share.
and yeah its good chance toy buy the anual bag for your retirement plan this year
December 10, 2015, 02:33:32 AM
At this second:
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
Note is 1740 on Poloniex, but 2200 on Cryptsy.
[Unobtanium is 39.0 P, 46.6 Cr.]
December 10, 2015, 12:25:02 AM
This is an interesting interview with Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Ethereum about the Next Generation For digital currencies.
What caught my attention is that some of his ideas are not that far from what we have in our long term plan, starting with the for profit company next year. Technically zero volatility = perfect stability. That is extremely difficult to achieve but important for large scale global commerce.
In our case, having a group with sufficient invested interest in DNotes does give us the “monetary policy advantage” Buterin referred to. We may have to introduce a dual currency model to achieve a near perfect volatility. This is not likely to happen for a few more years.
“It needs to offer some kind of monetary policy advantage over bitcoin proper.”
“Come up with an asset which is designed to have lower (or possibly zero) volatility against something like the dollar or SDR by having another high-volatility asset "absorb" its volatility.”
CT: What should new features be in cryptocurrency in order for it to succeed?
VB: Regarding cryptocurrency specifically, I think that right now in order for a new cryptocurrency to really succeed in the payments space specifically, it needs to offer some kind of monetary policy advantage over bitcoin proper. One route here is the "stablecoin" approach: come up with an asset which is designed to have lower (or possibly zero) volatility against something like the dollar or SDR by having another high-volatility asset "absorb" its volatility. Otherwise, the best thing to do to help small-scale coins get adopted is better development of "universal gateways": services that make it easy for customers and merchants to pay each other in different currencies and convert as needed.
“My vision for the crypto consumer-merchant-payments infrastructure architecture of the future is one where the customer declares the set of currencies S that they are willing to pay in, the merchant declares the set of currencies T they are willing to accept, then if S and T have an intersection you pay in whatever both are happy with and otherwise you use pathfinding algorithms over decentralized markets to find the cheapest way to exchange between something the customer is happy to give and something the merchant is willing to accept.”
CT: Scalability is Bitcoin’s main issue - What are your thoughts on this?
VB: Particularly, note that scalability isn't just a problem that we will have some far day in the future, it's a problem now. The reason is that if we can solve scalability today, then we can reduce the cost of a blockcain transaction by 100x, say from $0.04 to $0.0004. At those levels, using blockchains for many things will become dirt cheap, and people will start using blockchains as high-reliability application deployment infrastructure just because they are lazy. Imagine blockchain-based encrypted email. Very simple to write, with scalable blockchains it could be done in only 100 extra lines of code.
Scalability and also price volatility. Normal people do not want to be paid in volatile crazy tokens that can go up or down 2x in value before they have a chance to spend them.
CT: In what application will the next generation Blockchain be used for?
VB: In the longer term, I actually see blockchains and other decentralized technologies like distributed hash tables merging together into a kind of decentralized super-operating-system. Essentially, this dOS (not the same as microsoft's DOS) will be used not just for high-value stuff like payments but also as an infrastructure for very many kinds of web applications for perfectly mundane aspects of daily life. You could be conducting zero-knowledge privacy-preserving job searches on a blockchain of the future with a decentralized reputation system. E-commerce, IoT, everything.
Read More:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115828/interview-with-vitalik-buterin-about-next-generation-for-cryptocurrencies
What caught my attention is that some of his ideas are not that far from what we have in our long term plan, starting with the for profit company next year. Technically zero volatility = perfect stability. That is extremely difficult to achieve but important for large scale global commerce.
In our case, having a group with sufficient invested interest in DNotes does give us the “monetary policy advantage” Buterin referred to. We may have to introduce a dual currency model to achieve a near perfect volatility. This is not likely to happen for a few more years.
“It needs to offer some kind of monetary policy advantage over bitcoin proper.”
“Come up with an asset which is designed to have lower (or possibly zero) volatility against something like the dollar or SDR by having another high-volatility asset "absorb" its volatility.”
CT: What should new features be in cryptocurrency in order for it to succeed?
VB: Regarding cryptocurrency specifically, I think that right now in order for a new cryptocurrency to really succeed in the payments space specifically, it needs to offer some kind of monetary policy advantage over bitcoin proper. One route here is the "stablecoin" approach: come up with an asset which is designed to have lower (or possibly zero) volatility against something like the dollar or SDR by having another high-volatility asset "absorb" its volatility. Otherwise, the best thing to do to help small-scale coins get adopted is better development of "universal gateways": services that make it easy for customers and merchants to pay each other in different currencies and convert as needed.
“My vision for the crypto consumer-merchant-payments infrastructure architecture of the future is one where the customer declares the set of currencies S that they are willing to pay in, the merchant declares the set of currencies T they are willing to accept, then if S and T have an intersection you pay in whatever both are happy with and otherwise you use pathfinding algorithms over decentralized markets to find the cheapest way to exchange between something the customer is happy to give and something the merchant is willing to accept.”
CT: Scalability is Bitcoin’s main issue - What are your thoughts on this?
VB: Particularly, note that scalability isn't just a problem that we will have some far day in the future, it's a problem now. The reason is that if we can solve scalability today, then we can reduce the cost of a blockcain transaction by 100x, say from $0.04 to $0.0004. At those levels, using blockchains for many things will become dirt cheap, and people will start using blockchains as high-reliability application deployment infrastructure just because they are lazy. Imagine blockchain-based encrypted email. Very simple to write, with scalable blockchains it could be done in only 100 extra lines of code.
Scalability and also price volatility. Normal people do not want to be paid in volatile crazy tokens that can go up or down 2x in value before they have a chance to spend them.
CT: In what application will the next generation Blockchain be used for?
VB: In the longer term, I actually see blockchains and other decentralized technologies like distributed hash tables merging together into a kind of decentralized super-operating-system. Essentially, this dOS (not the same as microsoft's DOS) will be used not just for high-value stuff like payments but also as an infrastructure for very many kinds of web applications for perfectly mundane aspects of daily life. You could be conducting zero-knowledge privacy-preserving job searches on a blockchain of the future with a decentralized reputation system. E-commerce, IoT, everything.
Read More:
http://cointelegraph.com/news/115828/interview-with-vitalik-buterin-about-next-generation-for-cryptocurrencies
December 09, 2015, 07:39:40 PM
Just read this article, "Brock Pierce: Bitcoin Foundation 'Close To Running Out of Money'", which highlights one of the key factors of why we need the for profit company to support DNotes. It's a different kind of idea that not many would be willing to commit to, it may be hard to believe even now as we close in on our second year, the key will be to stay the course and more and more will believe and understand what we are trying to accomplish through demonstration. As Alan has mentioned many times we need to stand the test of time. We could certainly accelerate our efforts with serious investment, but the timing will be critical.
Here is a snippet from the article:
The Bitcoin Foundation will soon run out of funds, the foundation's board was told at a meeting on 20th October.
The meeting's minutes, published yesterday, show that board chairman Brock Pierce opened the event with the declaration that the Foundation is "close to running out of money".
Further disclosures during the meeting show that it is struggling to generate significant revenue. Its last event, the third instalment of its DevCore workshops series held in San Mateo, California on 16th October, earned just $2,000 in sponsorship fees.
The foundation has embarked on cost-cutting measures to staunch the flow of cash. September board meeting minutes show that it was spending "5 to 10%" of the "previous budget". The foundation was spending $150,000 a month as recently as last May, according to minutes released at the time. It was operating with a different board and staff led by then executive director Jon Matonis.
Burn rates and runway
Current foundation spending would stand at $7,500 a month, based on 5% of a $150,000 monthly budget. The foundation had a balance of $59,000, according to minutes from the July board meeting. Based on these estimates, the foundation has funds until next March.
Foundation executive director Bruce Fenton said at the October meeting:
"We need to do serious fundraising ... Revenue is key, we can't do much more to cut expenses."
The foundation currently employs two part-time staff. Fenton runs the organisation as a volunteer. The board pinned much of the expenditure on commitments made by the previous regime. This included vendor invoices, past employee expenses, paid vacation expenses and legal bills.
A new board was elected in March amid drama. Candidates complained about an overhaul of the voting system, poor voter outreach and allegations that the organisation was bankrupt.
Here is a snippet from the article:
The Bitcoin Foundation will soon run out of funds, the foundation's board was told at a meeting on 20th October.
The meeting's minutes, published yesterday, show that board chairman Brock Pierce opened the event with the declaration that the Foundation is "close to running out of money".
Further disclosures during the meeting show that it is struggling to generate significant revenue. Its last event, the third instalment of its DevCore workshops series held in San Mateo, California on 16th October, earned just $2,000 in sponsorship fees.
The foundation has embarked on cost-cutting measures to staunch the flow of cash. September board meeting minutes show that it was spending "5 to 10%" of the "previous budget". The foundation was spending $150,000 a month as recently as last May, according to minutes released at the time. It was operating with a different board and staff led by then executive director Jon Matonis.
Burn rates and runway
Current foundation spending would stand at $7,500 a month, based on 5% of a $150,000 monthly budget. The foundation had a balance of $59,000, according to minutes from the July board meeting. Based on these estimates, the foundation has funds until next March.
Foundation executive director Bruce Fenton said at the October meeting:
"We need to do serious fundraising ... Revenue is key, we can't do much more to cut expenses."
The foundation currently employs two part-time staff. Fenton runs the organisation as a volunteer. The board pinned much of the expenditure on commitments made by the previous regime. This included vendor invoices, past employee expenses, paid vacation expenses and legal bills.
A new board was elected in March amid drama. Candidates complained about an overhaul of the voting system, poor voter outreach and allegations that the organisation was bankrupt.
That sounded worse than I expected; more shocking than "should not be a surprise".
What was the foundation doing that warranted a $150,000 a MONTH budget?? Have they accomplished anything or was it just a colossal waste of people's money?
After a quick look, this is what I was able to find:
http://bitcoinfoundation.org/forum/index.php?/topic/1284-the-truth-about-the-bitcoin-foundation/
I'm not entirely shocked at the number. However, I too would question where it actually went.
Some snippets:
Everyone has the right to know the truth:
- The Foundation has almost no money left, and just fired 90% of its people. Some will stay on as volunteers.
- Core dev can no longer be funded by it, and Patrick Murck is trying to re-create a new Foundation just for core dev, because the current name is tarnished. Do not fall for this.
- The current Executive Director (Patrick Murck), will be gone in 2 weeks, and they are trying to find the next person to blame everything on.
- Jim Harper was threatened for doing a press release which was (barely) critical of the Foundation after he got elected. The Foundation tries to make sure we hide the truth by subtly threatening us on a regular basis.
- If I get asked to leave the Foundation for telling the truth, so be it. The truth is being told.
December 09, 2015, 06:52:24 PM
What was the foundation doing that warranted a $150,000 a MONTH budget?? Have they accomplished anything or was it just a colossal waste of people's money?
I had a similar question in mind.
December 09, 2015, 06:08:39 PM
Just read this article, "Brock Pierce: Bitcoin Foundation 'Close To Running Out of Money'", which highlights one of the key factors of why we need the for profit company to support DNotes. It's a different kind of idea that not many would be willing to commit to, it may be hard to believe even now as we close in on our second year, the key will be to stay the course and more and more will believe and understand what we are trying to accomplish through demonstration. As Alan has mentioned many times we need to stand the test of time. We could certainly accelerate our efforts with serious investment, but the timing will be critical.
Here is a snippet from the article:
The Bitcoin Foundation will soon run out of funds, the foundation's board was told at a meeting on 20th October.
The meeting's minutes, published yesterday, show that board chairman Brock Pierce opened the event with the declaration that the Foundation is "close to running out of money".
Further disclosures during the meeting show that it is struggling to generate significant revenue. Its last event, the third instalment of its DevCore workshops series held in San Mateo, California on 16th October, earned just $2,000 in sponsorship fees.
The foundation has embarked on cost-cutting measures to staunch the flow of cash. September board meeting minutes show that it was spending "5 to 10%" of the "previous budget". The foundation was spending $150,000 a month as recently as last May, according to minutes released at the time. It was operating with a different board and staff led by then executive director Jon Matonis.
Burn rates and runway
Current foundation spending would stand at $7,500 a month, based on 5% of a $150,000 monthly budget. The foundation had a balance of $59,000, according to minutes from the July board meeting. Based on these estimates, the foundation has funds until next March.
Foundation executive director Bruce Fenton said at the October meeting:
"We need to do serious fundraising ... Revenue is key, we can't do much more to cut expenses."
The foundation currently employs two part-time staff. Fenton runs the organisation as a volunteer. The board pinned much of the expenditure on commitments made by the previous regime. This included vendor invoices, past employee expenses, paid vacation expenses and legal bills.
A new board was elected in March amid drama. Candidates complained about an overhaul of the voting system, poor voter outreach and allegations that the organisation was bankrupt.
Here is a snippet from the article:
The Bitcoin Foundation will soon run out of funds, the foundation's board was told at a meeting on 20th October.
The meeting's minutes, published yesterday, show that board chairman Brock Pierce opened the event with the declaration that the Foundation is "close to running out of money".
Further disclosures during the meeting show that it is struggling to generate significant revenue. Its last event, the third instalment of its DevCore workshops series held in San Mateo, California on 16th October, earned just $2,000 in sponsorship fees.
The foundation has embarked on cost-cutting measures to staunch the flow of cash. September board meeting minutes show that it was spending "5 to 10%" of the "previous budget". The foundation was spending $150,000 a month as recently as last May, according to minutes released at the time. It was operating with a different board and staff led by then executive director Jon Matonis.
Burn rates and runway
Current foundation spending would stand at $7,500 a month, based on 5% of a $150,000 monthly budget. The foundation had a balance of $59,000, according to minutes from the July board meeting. Based on these estimates, the foundation has funds until next March.
Foundation executive director Bruce Fenton said at the October meeting:
"We need to do serious fundraising ... Revenue is key, we can't do much more to cut expenses."
The foundation currently employs two part-time staff. Fenton runs the organisation as a volunteer. The board pinned much of the expenditure on commitments made by the previous regime. This included vendor invoices, past employee expenses, paid vacation expenses and legal bills.
A new board was elected in March amid drama. Candidates complained about an overhaul of the voting system, poor voter outreach and allegations that the organisation was bankrupt.
That sounded worse than I expected; more shocking than "should not be a surprise".
What was the foundation doing that warranted a $150,000 a MONTH budget?? Have they accomplished anything or was it just a collossal waste of people's money?
Jump to: