although blockchain technology is a really good invention I think that bitcoin and blockchain technology will survive together
blockchain technology is focused on many other fields where bitcoin is not,but bitcoin purposes are payments
Topic: "Blockchain technology will pervade, but not bitcoin." (Read 8919 times)
This vid "Where can blockchain technology take us" provides an inspiring answer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wczMKASQk6s&list=UUhtICzF0ZEhhgoMA8YWhULw
I suggest starting at 6mins in.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wczMKASQk6s&list=UUhtICzF0ZEhhgoMA8YWhULw
I suggest starting at 6mins in.
it can go either way. In favor of statement the examples given are usually in parallel to how internet businesses evolved. However, Bitcoin has a huge network effect due to being the first, and thats something which may keep it at the top.
[/quote]
This. Since we're in the first iteration of Bitcoin, the next 5 years will show all of its strengths and weaknesses. Even if you discount the other (non-currency) services that could be developed using blockchain tech, bitcoin itself will undergo some transformation (bitcoin 2,3,4???), whilst the underlying technology will remain the enabler.
Its sort of saying a few years back that Yahoo > Internet. Time showed that the individual byproducts of the technology evolve, whilst the enabling tech (internet, or in our case blockchain) more or less stays the same.
Please note, im not trying to say the internet hasnt evolved, but rather that the concept of internet has remained pretty much unchanged from day one
[/quote]
This. Since we're in the first iteration of Bitcoin, the next 5 years will show all of its strengths and weaknesses. Even if you discount the other (non-currency) services that could be developed using blockchain tech, bitcoin itself will undergo some transformation (bitcoin 2,3,4???), whilst the underlying technology will remain the enabler.
Its sort of saying a few years back that Yahoo > Internet. Time showed that the individual byproducts of the technology evolve, whilst the enabling tech (internet, or in our case blockchain) more or less stays the same.
Please note, im not trying to say the internet hasnt evolved, but rather that the concept of internet has remained pretty much unchanged from day one
I've heard that phrase thousands of times, and I've thought about it enough to be sure I don't agree.
Bitcoin is necessary for the blockchain to exist, without the incentive, there are no miners and there is no network to rely on.
If you assert that the blockchain will pervade, you necessarily imply bitcoin as a currency will too.
What do you think?
Bitcoin is necessary for the blockchain to exist, without the incentive, there are no miners and there is no network to rely on.
If you assert that the blockchain will pervade, you necessarily imply bitcoin as a currency will too.
What do you think?
The statement means a different blockchain, any other blockchain, not the Bitcoin one. Blockchain technology means any other ledger which is publicly available and everyone has a copy.
Coming back to that statement, I think it can go either way. In favor of statement the examples given are usually in parallel to how internet businesses evolved. However, Bitcoin has a huge network effect due to being the first, and thats something which may keep it at the top.
The network and the tokens needed to operate it are inextricably intertwined
That's right, and there is no logical a priori reason why that token/network
would have to be bitcoin when we are talking about blockchain.
That's such a stupid statement. Its just like Apple would do great but its share will fail/fall.
I hear this phrase a lot but it makes no sense to me
The network and the tokens needed to operate it are inextricably intertwined
The network and the tokens needed to operate it are inextricably intertwined
give me one example of how anyone is incentivized in a decentralized manner to support the blockchain with no bitcoin reward.
Until I see an acceptable answer to this question (and I believe none exists), then the whole discussion ends here.
I've heard that phrase thousands of times, and I've thought about it enough to be sure I don't agree.
Bitcoin is necessary for the blockchain to exist, without the incentive, there are no miners and there is no network to rely on.
If you assert that the blockchain will pervade, you necessarily imply bitcoin as a currency will too.
What do you think?
Bitcoin is necessary for the blockchain to exist, without the incentive, there are no miners and there is no network to rely on.
If you assert that the blockchain will pervade, you necessarily imply bitcoin as a currency will too.
What do you think?
Mining isn't the long term incentive, though - fees are.
Satoshi himself allowed that other cryptocurrencies might replace Bitcoin in the future. The first iteration of any technology isn't always the one which prevails. Bitcoin may survive as a currency but not as the dominant payment protocol (the primary function for which it was developed). It may become to ingrained as a commodity to function effectively a currency. There are many different Bitcoin agendas and who knows which will prevail in the future.
Cryptocurrencies are here to stay. Blockchain technology is here to stay for the foreseeable future (although it may well be replaced by something we can't even conceive of right now before 21 million BTC have been mined). Whether Bitcoin itself will still be around in 10 or 20 years, much less 50 or 100 is pure speculation. We'll have usable quantum computing before then and that's a game changer.
I think bitcoin the currency will have its niche for sure. But the rest of the world doesn't want to wake up and see that their bank account is down 40%. The technology is solid, the volatility and large wallets are a turn off. If bitcoin hit $100,000 a coin and someone had 100,000 then the whole world or at least entire countries would basically be at that persons mercy.
What is stopping the dollar from dropping 40% that Bitcoin can't have? Also your 100 billion example is peanuts. There are nearly trillionaires now. 
That's only 10 Billion, you make it sound like Obama has to call Bill Gates for permission to wipe his arse.
I think bitcoin the currency will have its niche for sure. But the rest of the world doesn't want to wake up and see that their bank account is down 40%. The technology is solid, the volatility and large wallets are a turn off. If bitcoin hit $100,000 a coin and someone had 100,000 then the whole world or at least entire countries would basically be at that persons mercy.
Tesla was used because it was a high ticket product, and a tech oriented company that might conceivably be more nimble in adopting innovation.
I guess you could say that any asset that is validated on a blockchain "becomes" the coin in the absence of a coin or token. This is what I'm saying the problem is, that you don't want a highly valuable thing on a low hash, low participation network, whether it is public or behind some fence with no trespassing signs. In cryptocurrrency, the value of the currency is not tightly coupled to hashrate, but it has a large effect on the perceived "trustworthiness" of the currency as a unit of value and a unit of exchange. Ergo, low hash coins aren't worth much much in general, because they are not trusted to be worth much, whereas as hash rises, confidence increases in their ability to secure the store of value.
Anyway, in the case of BMW and Mercedes mentioned above, which vehicles have relatively huge real world adoption in comparison to Tesla, I can see that there might be enough interested market participants to make a go of some kind of part and service record tracking blockchain. Particularly if it is inclusive, not just factory and authorised dealers, but independent dealers and reputable vehicle recyclers and body shops. However, until it reaches some critical mass, it's gonna be untrustworthy for anything much more than lug nuts.
At last we somewhat converge in our opinion. Even to the anarchist issuing licenses is acceptable so long as those licenses are issued by a private concern with recognizable brand name and status symbol cachet (Tesla,BMW,Mercedes,...) and not by some governmental authority.I guess you could say that any asset that is validated on a blockchain "becomes" the coin in the absence of a coin or token. This is what I'm saying the problem is, that you don't want a highly valuable thing on a low hash, low participation network, whether it is public or behind some fence with no trespassing signs. In cryptocurrrency, the value of the currency is not tightly coupled to hashrate, but it has a large effect on the perceived "trustworthiness" of the currency as a unit of value and a unit of exchange. Ergo, low hash coins aren't worth much much in general, because they are not trusted to be worth much, whereas as hash rises, confidence increases in their ability to secure the store of value.
Anyway, in the case of BMW and Mercedes mentioned above, which vehicles have relatively huge real world adoption in comparison to Tesla, I can see that there might be enough interested market participants to make a go of some kind of part and service record tracking blockchain. Particularly if it is inclusive, not just factory and authorised dealers, but independent dealers and reputable vehicle recyclers and body shops. However, until it reaches some critical mass, it's gonna be untrustworthy for anything much more than lug nuts.
The main resultant difference is in the hashrate required. A general-purpose monetary blockchain that is supposed to serve all comers needs high hashrate and high participation to have reasonable safety. In a special-purpose blockchain that serves only licensed users high hash rate is not required because hashing serves mostly as an error-detecting and fraud-detecting mechanism.
When Does it expire?
With the help of this great Bitcoin community, our bitcoin will stand against all odds. F**K Blockchain, Bitcoin rules.
What do you mean by fuck blockchain? Bitcoin can't exist without the blockchain.
I guess he meant other blockchains.
If not he is missing the point - blockchain can't be separated from bitcoin.
With the help of this great Bitcoin community, our bitcoin will stand against all odds. F**K Blockchain, Bitcoin rules.
What do you mean by fuck blockchain? Bitcoin can't exist without the blockchain.
im just not convinced. there may be very narrow uses of the blockchain w/o bitcoin but bitcoin is the driving force of incentive. one simply just can't run w/o the other.
the most likely not bitcoin scenario to me is just a superior coin coming out that gains wide spread adoption and eventually overtakes bitcoin. myspace/facebook style. this thread otherwise seems worthless.
the most likely not bitcoin scenario to me is just a superior coin coming out that gains wide spread adoption and eventually overtakes bitcoin. myspace/facebook style. this thread otherwise seems worthless.
With the help of this great Bitcoin community, our bitcoin will stand against all odds. F**K Blockchain, Bitcoin rules.
Tesla was used because it was a high ticket product, and a tech oriented company that might conceivably be more nimble in adopting innovation.
I guess you could say that any asset that is validated on a blockchain "becomes" the coin in the absence of a coin or token. This is what I'm saying the problem is, that you don't want a highly valuable thing on a low hash, low participation network, whether it is public or behind some fence with no trespassing signs. In cryptocurrrency, the value of the currency is not tightly coupled to hashrate, but it has a large effect on the perceived "trustworthiness" of the currency as a unit of value and a unit of exchange. Ergo, low hash coins aren't worth much much in general, because they are not trusted to be worth much, whereas as hash rises, confidence increases in their ability to secure the store of value.
Anyway, in the case of BMW and Mercedes mentioned above, which vehicles have relatively huge real world adoption in comparison to Tesla, I can see that there might be enough interested market participants to make a go of some kind of part and service record tracking blockchain. Particularly if it is inclusive, not just factory and authorised dealers, but independent dealers and reputable vehicle recyclers and body shops. However, until it reaches some critical mass, it's gonna be untrustworthy for anything much more than lug nuts.
Think of miners as thumbtacks, think of value as weight. With one thumbtack you can hang a piece of paper on the wall by a corner, but it might be vulnerable to strong breezes, 4 hold it there quite securely. 8 miiight hold a paperback novel tacked up by it's covers, but could very well be knocked off by someone brushing past. For maximum retention of whole thing, least risk you'd want to tack it up page by page. Lot of thumbtacks. A kilogram of gold? yes you'd need a large number of thumbtacks to keep it on the wall, spread out thin. You can get a gold bar to balance there, strung up with wires, with maybe as few as 12 thumbtacks, pushed in just so, and proclaim yourself a smarter fellah than these thumbtack squandering know nothings... but all it needs is a slight push and it will strain the tack at one end or another, and they'll pop out dumping it on the floor. So, moral of story, if you really really want something to stay where you put it, you need overkill on the number of tacks. Someone leaves open the window, no problem, can have a force 9 gale blowing through and it's still nailed to that wall.
I guess you could say that any asset that is validated on a blockchain "becomes" the coin in the absence of a coin or token. This is what I'm saying the problem is, that you don't want a highly valuable thing on a low hash, low participation network, whether it is public or behind some fence with no trespassing signs. In cryptocurrrency, the value of the currency is not tightly coupled to hashrate, but it has a large effect on the perceived "trustworthiness" of the currency as a unit of value and a unit of exchange. Ergo, low hash coins aren't worth much much in general, because they are not trusted to be worth much, whereas as hash rises, confidence increases in their ability to secure the store of value.
Anyway, in the case of BMW and Mercedes mentioned above, which vehicles have relatively huge real world adoption in comparison to Tesla, I can see that there might be enough interested market participants to make a go of some kind of part and service record tracking blockchain. Particularly if it is inclusive, not just factory and authorised dealers, but independent dealers and reputable vehicle recyclers and body shops. However, until it reaches some critical mass, it's gonna be untrustworthy for anything much more than lug nuts.
Think of miners as thumbtacks, think of value as weight. With one thumbtack you can hang a piece of paper on the wall by a corner, but it might be vulnerable to strong breezes, 4 hold it there quite securely. 8 miiight hold a paperback novel tacked up by it's covers, but could very well be knocked off by someone brushing past. For maximum retention of whole thing, least risk you'd want to tack it up page by page. Lot of thumbtacks. A kilogram of gold? yes you'd need a large number of thumbtacks to keep it on the wall, spread out thin. You can get a gold bar to balance there, strung up with wires, with maybe as few as 12 thumbtacks, pushed in just so, and proclaim yourself a smarter fellah than these thumbtack squandering know nothings... but all it needs is a slight push and it will strain the tack at one end or another, and they'll pop out dumping it on the floor. So, moral of story, if you really really want something to stay where you put it, you need overkill on the number of tacks. Someone leaves open the window, no problem, can have a force 9 gale blowing through and it's still nailed to that wall.
thats not decentralized. sure tesla may be incentivized to keep a blockchain ledger going in that instance but i am not nor is some random dude in africa. and if the incentives aren't entirely democratic, corruption etc will be pervasive.
Well, Tesla Motors is very new, and I don't know much about it. But two other well known car brands: BMW & Mercedes already have the incentive for decentralized ownership tracking and counterfeit detection. In fact they are desperately researching all available technologies, because the theft, counterfeiting and reassembling of partially totaled cars are so prevalent. E.g. I know that they (and the car insurers) paid for a pilot program of DNA-marking the genuine products with killed harmless genetically engineered bacteria mixed into paints. They (BMW & Mercedes) operate in so many jurisdictions that none of the centralized solutions have been working out for them. In particular counterfeiting and reassembly of wrecks is of interest to buyers and resellers because of how they affect collision safety of those expensive cars. For sellers being able to include uninterrupted record of periodic maintenance greatly increases the price.Outside of the automotive business I know that Cisco is one of the globally recognized names that is also desperately researching ownership tracking and counterfeit detection technologies.
Jump to: