Governments are far too conservative to do anything this radical, Visa and Western Union, probably Paypal too are also going to highly reluctant to risk their current income, but are there any real costs that a company will face by putting their name behind an alt coin? A company like Valve maybe? The disadvantages of Bitcoin for a company become a major strength if you pre-mined just enough to smooth the market fluctuations.
I have no association with Valve, but it occurs to me they already have a client, a committed user base with more than decent computing hardware who could benefit financially from optionally using their machines to run mining software in free time.
Topic: Corporate Crypto (Read 666 times)
That's actually one of my major concerns when considering the possibility of mainstream adaptation. Bitcoin's value is supposed to come from usefulness and scarcity - but the usefulness can be replicated and the scarcity is irrelevant if we take altcoins into consideration. At the moment there is little reason to pick an altcoin over bitcoin since the latter is far more established - but what if a new altcoin was released by a large corporation or major financial institution with a blessing from the government? Add widespread advertising, good PR, possibly even legislations limiting the use of bitcoin itself... what happens them? I know most people here wouldn't give a toss, but if we're talking about mainstream adaptation we need to take the general public into consideration - and the general public does not care all that much about privacy and independence. Many would rather choose something more 'official' and 'trustworthy' than that shady bitcoin thing used by criminals for money-laundering and drug trade.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Government issued altcoin where they have full control over the protocol and the number of coins -> how is that any different from current currencies?
If, on the other side, the protocol is open and participating as a node gives you a reward, well what is the upside to already existing crypto currencies?
That's actually one of my major concerns when considering the possibility of mainstream adaptation. Bitcoin's value is supposed to come from usefulness and scarcity - but the usefulness can be replicated and the scarcity is irrelevant if we take altcoins into consideration. At the moment there is little reason to pick an altcoin over bitcoin since the latter is far more established - but what if a new altcoin was released by a large corporation or major financial institution with a blessing from the government? Add widespread advertising, good PR, possibly even legislations limiting the use of bitcoin itself... what happens them? I know most people here wouldn't give a toss, but if we're talking about mainstream adaptation we need to take the general public into consideration - and the general public does not care all that much about privacy and independence. Many would rather choose something more 'official' and 'trustworthy' than that shady bitcoin thing used by criminals for money-laundering and drug trade.
Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Given it takes almost no effort to copy Bitcoin and release a variant, given it takes almost no resources run the ledger and mine and given that the only thing that all crypto currencies really lack is a certain amount of credibility and brand awareness, will 2014 be the year that big corporations release their own Crypto and what will this do to Bitcoin?
For a corporation to profit they'd want to start with a large stash of the currency. You need incentive for individuals to participate or else you are just running your own network.
Just look at Ripple. 80% of XRP belongs to a select few.
Besides the major strength of Bitcoin and other Crypto currencies that employ proof of work is that it is more resilient to Byzantine attacks.
I must admit I haven't really looked into the Ripple code but forming consensus where message generation may not be as time-bounded as in a PoW model might put them at a classical situation where 3f+1 correct nodes are required for f byzantine nodes to guarantee correctness. This of course may also apply to other systems (pure proof of stake model?). It makes sense to have slow block creation on the chain because it gives the network enough time to disseminate information which strengthens the model.
Back to your assumption: Sure, corporations may run their own digital currencies as they are already doing but unless they can give individuals a strong incentive to participate it will always be closely linked to what that corporation offers
Amazon has Coins, Google have funded Ripple and used to have Bucks, but If you want to ride the bandwagon it has to be a Bitcoin clone and I don't think anyone has done that.
If there was ever a transaction that didn't require a 3rd party processor or additional Visa fees it is a 69p app or song, but the transaction has to be instantaneous and you could only do that if you controlled the currency. I would argue that is the reason they would ultimately want to go with a copy.
If there was ever a transaction that didn't require a 3rd party processor or additional Visa fees it is a 69p app or song, but the transaction has to be instantaneous and you could only do that if you controlled the currency. I would argue that is the reason they would ultimately want to go with a copy.
If I'm correct, I belive corporations have already tried launching virtual currency of their own, without much succes...
As for Google conspiracy...I don't think this is likely, also Google hasn't taken any stance towards Bitcoin (positive or negative); except the admittance of apps on it's Play Store.
As for Google conspiracy...I don't think this is likely, also Google hasn't taken any stance towards Bitcoin (positive or negative); except the admittance of apps on it's Play Store.
I have been messing about a lot on Cryptsy lately because Bitcoin has just got too commercial ;-). It is a lot of fun even if you loathe altcoin, but it has got me thinking more about possible Bitcoin disruption.
Given it takes almost no effort to copy Bitcoin and release a variant, given it takes almost no resources run the ledger and mine and given that the only thing that all crypto currencies really lack is a certain amount of credibility and brand awareness, will 2014 be the year that big corporations release their own Crypto and what will this do to Bitcoin? I am aware this gets discussed from time to time, but I it does seem like we have just about cleared all the regulatory hurdles that Eric Schmidt spoke of some time back as being a barrier to entry.
Incidentally, there is a lovely theory that Satoshi was/is a Google employee, Bitcoin was an employee project and the secrecy was necessary to avoid any legal blowback. Makes a lot of sense and explains the disappearance of Satoshi, but then I love a good conspiracy theory.
Given it takes almost no effort to copy Bitcoin and release a variant, given it takes almost no resources run the ledger and mine and given that the only thing that all crypto currencies really lack is a certain amount of credibility and brand awareness, will 2014 be the year that big corporations release their own Crypto and what will this do to Bitcoin? I am aware this gets discussed from time to time, but I it does seem like we have just about cleared all the regulatory hurdles that Eric Schmidt spoke of some time back as being a barrier to entry.
Incidentally, there is a lovely theory that Satoshi was/is a Google employee, Bitcoin was an employee project and the secrecy was necessary to avoid any legal blowback. Makes a lot of sense and explains the disappearance of Satoshi, but then I love a good conspiracy theory.
Jump to: