Topic: I.T Professionals and bitcoin industry (Read 251 times)

Agree those I.T. professionals had a bigger opportunity in this technology as this one of their fields and I seen many I.T. professionals had join the new ico as system specialist to consultants.

They have got an advantage that they have information about internet and computers. Even with less effort, they can learn easily about crypto.

IT professionals have an advanced understanding how the computer works, they are well-versed with software and hardware. Due to their background it is easy for them to understand how bitcoin works. But in terms of how the market works, the traders have the advantage. But it does not matter anymore since as long as you are willing to understand and learn a thing about bitcoin, it will only need time and effort before you have a grasp on it.

I.T experts specially computer wizards rather professionals know all about data base, networks and other computer things. In any case like newbies like me was exploring more in this industry. I.T Pro's was the first persons who knew about this industry because as far as I know the one who created this thing was I.T experts.
As on my opinion they were the first millionaires of this Bitcoin Industry, and they have a great future on this technology rather system.

I agree we are not ready. I don't know about it actually being a bad idea for people to start using cryptos more.
I understand you worry and I definitely agree that would happen and it would be a problem, but I also kinda feel it is natural and perhaps good in the long run.
This would probably get a lot of developers to work harder on this and I am sure that people would give it a second chance after the problems are fixed.
I am not saying we should focus on increasing the adoption, just that we shouldn't try to stop it.
It should probably be left natural, as is. We try to increase it's security, usability and usefulness and the adoption grows as a result.
I understand there are costs, but I think benefits of increasing adoption outweigh them.

sorry about my previous post, i needed a rant.
but to answer OP

I.T professionals that know the buzzwords, will have an upper hand. after all they can understand "cryptographic" "decentralised" "peer to peer" instantly. where as average joe would need about an hour of youtube videos to get through the buzzwords and then hours and hours translating many things.

but with that said. right now. there are becoming more jobs available in the community that are not techy.
exchange corporate offices hiring cleaners, staff lunch room cooks. leaflet delivery guys. conferance ticket checkers. delivery guys, even some conferences have "bikini babes" walking up and down the sections.

bitcoin is moving beyond the technical.. and into the domestic/consumer arena. and so the possibilities are widening..
howver if you want to be DEEPly involved in bitcoin. then yes knowing the technicals helps, which is faster to learn if you already have a IT / technical mindset

Yes. but not totally the full-advantage.Since we are talking bitcoin or cryptocurrency, its a little advantage to I.T specialist since they are not ignorant or not afraid to invest to it compared to non-i.t citizen which the world for them is always the fiat currencies.But theres lacking also for I.T, they know about crypto but still few of them are good or experienced in investment. The real deal here in crypto is profit so much favorable for experienced in trading.

Yes, they have a lot of advantages when incomes to bitcoin, because they are more knowledgeable on how they will secure their funds  and other other account that they had. Even though you are not a I.T professional, you can also join in crypto world because in bitcoin you will need to understand it and reading is more important if you want to get more learning about bitcoin. Marketing people also have advantage on bitcoin because they know the strategy in marketing, especially those investors who don't need programming skills to take profits from the market, they just need some technical analysis background to get those potential gains.

let me just butt-in to clarify things in regards to the danny hamilton vs anti-cen debate about LN
FTFY anti-cen because danny hates it unless people use the correct buzzwords (buzzwords that are meaningless to average joe i might add) which is where some of this community fail to understand that making up new buzzwords to sound cool actually causes more issues than helps.. as proven by this topic and dannys instant reaction to attack someone for not being technical enough with the buzzwording..

it is especially brutal when not using the right buzzword danny and others then argues too much on the bad use of buzzwords rather then the underlying issue your trying to communicate.
but atleast there are some people that can think out side of the box to know what is trying to be said

anyway..
lets rebuttle some of danny's comments

so now people are suppose to do due diligence and KYC who they connect to.. i call that a barrier to routing
i guess LN's "auto pilot" is less than auto.
seems all of LN's promises of limitless fast, cheap, barrierless promises start falling apart.
(as ill explain a few of those fallings apart if you keep reading)

yes its open source.. it is soo open source infact, that the hubs('banks') can tweak their personal node to have the upper hand...
after all. in any contract. whoever signs first is usually the one that has more to lose/will get treated worse

a hub could set it so the user signs first. and thus the hub 'could' refuses to sign their part.. forcing the user to send a stale tx because its the only fully signed tx they have..
to which the hub then signs the new tx (the new one the user signed but hub refused to show sig), hub broadcasts it. just to get to CSV revoke the users (stale)tx so that the hub can take the collateral

offchain is full of flaws.. after all.. the whole purpose of blockchain is that thousands of people audit and no single point of attack.. but in LN there is no community audit. its just you vs the hub while inchannel. so they can mess with you, (and yes you can mess with them).

danny can you not remember many years ago. lesson one of why bitcoin and blockchain was so revolutionary in the concept of currency. come on think about it.. if transactions could be trusted peer to peer without a blockchain. without miners. without decentralised checks.. there would be no need for bitcoin..

i beg to differ..
ill link you an image.. and here is a hint
purple, red, green and orange are all 1 person(1 person, 4 nodes) attacking blue to double their money.
https://i.imgur.com/9FMMkdK.png
and as you will see it is possible to rob people, simple by using LN's biggest feature against people

wow danny.. i can see anti-cen may not have the linguistics perfect. but your missing the context just to be a grammar nazi

and i feel anti-cens point is.. if they are taken out. then all the linked users ar then made to close channels and open new channels.
meaning:
1. sudden onchain mempool growth of users broadcasting tx's of a hub that had hundreds of channels that are redundant but have FUNDS IN THEM
- hint its not a simple, as you put it 'nothing'.. meaning you think "oh well lets move on in 0.01seconds... no harm, no loss no foul, no delay"
 
2. users having to pay onchain fee's to close and open fresh channels with a different hub to move the funds from the redundant channel to the new channel
3. imagine a DDoSer purposefully attacking the most popular hubs. as soon as they are taken down. it moves onto the next popular one
its not a split second operation to close a channel and then open a new FUNDED one.. (yes i said funded, meaning onchain delays/costs)

and to pre-empt obvious rebuttles
yes nodes will already have more than one channel open. but in a network of say 1 million users. having 2-3 routes is not enough for a hop model to b "well connected". thus having 30-100 channels open is not cheap or easy for avrage joe. (EG if someone only wants to risk $60 in LN then each channel would only have $0.60-$2 in it) meaning it limits spending per route. thus again hop model doesnt work

so thats where banker hubs get established where users only have 1-2 channels where one of them is a central hub(bank) that way users risking $60 only have to split $30 between them and the bank and them and another friend/relative/person. to allow a bit of 'play' in a differnt direction(route)

pre-empt obvious rebuttle
i guess the next empty reply is that not all channels need funding upfront. and you'll probably say nodes will set up 30-100 channels unfunded and only fund them when they need to spend funds in that particular route.
well ask yourself where do the funds come from.. oh yea onchain transactions.

oh and lets not forget that if connecting to another node unfunded then it opens up DDoS risks to occur without penalty because there is no funds at risk for the attacker..
which brings me onto the other problem. needing an entrance fee(yes LN devs have this concept) of needing to be funded to then lay out penalty fee's and also to know how much the channel participants can/wish to reserve for themselves and also to use for routing of others, etc which all dips into the $60 a average joe might want to risk in LN

(P.S i have run many scenarios, far beyond the devs. who have only ran basic "do they connect" tests.. not real world lifestyle/usage in the real world scenarios.. and yes the devs do not give a crap about costs/how often channels need to close and open. they will just blame users for not cautiously learning for themselves or depositing too much/to little or other excuses about how users themselves decided x,y,z so problems are not devs fault.)

afterall someone point out a flaw. and the reply was "*Why isn't it your fault?  Take some personal responsibility for your actions."

Especially for those who have good team members, single fighter will not get more advantage, they still need team members. If there is someone who is I.T professional then he need  other people who professional in marketing, management or leader ship.

true, the deep knowledge treasury with intelligence and professionalism is needed to reach the development of the future of criptocurrency, besides it is poured on the results of technology products that support so that the bitcoin travel path will be well controlled.

YES they do
>TECHNOLOGY AND GADGET LITERACY is a great factor, we know that not all people are well literate when it come on  using different technology
>INTERESTED since they  are always facing their gadgets, they will always find a way how their skill will be useful.

Definitely yes if they are open to the cryptocurrency. They have more advantage to us because they studied technology but some of the I.T. professionals doesn't believe in bitcoin but they believe in blockchain. It is still depend to them on how they will use the bitcoin. But most of the bitcoin users nowadays are not technology professionals, some of them are out of school youth. It still depend to a person on how he or she understand the flow of bitcoin.

I think the advantages possessed in the bitcoin or crypto world is by creating a nice konios that can make a lot of profit and I think that's the advantage.

Not really becauese there will be no difference between a programmer and an investor,because bitcoin's code wont be changed by anyone.Only those core developers would be able to change the codes of bitcoin.As an investor you wont need programming skills to take profits from the market,you will just need to have some technical analysis background to get those potential gains.

I would add number 4: They can build a success without being controlled by laws, rules, governments... the freedom offered by btc + daily technology progress can assume stability for projects backed by technology.

I see 3 big advantages IT professionals have in the Bitcoin world:

1. They can understand the background and get easier to believe that this is a good technology and a success. Together with the fact they do read the news, many got in early too.
2. I think that they can have a better chance to earn Bitcoin for the work they do (getting into Bitcoin is easier if you don't have to pay/buy). Also some may have become miners.
3. They can secure their funds better, having less change to get hacked and lost their funds.

It has.


You have MANY false assumptions about how Lightning Network works.  These false assumptions lead you to post a lot of misleading nonsense.  This is just one more example of that.


Why isn't it your fault?  Take some personal responsibility for your actions. If you publish a stale state, it IS your fault.

That being said...  You can just call the person/business that you opened the channel with in the first place.


More nonsense.  The protocol is public.  Use open source implementations.


They can't take what isn't given to them.


If there is more than ONE, then (by definition) it can't be a SINGLE point of failure.


Nothing. They just won't be included in the route.

Really depends, if you wanna earn from coding than yes, if you wanna earn from promoting than no.

Only your direct counterparty can claim the collateral in case of a explicitely provoked channel state mismatch. Routing nodes along the way have no say in this. They don't even know who's sending how much to whom.



No such thing as different kinds of access to the protocol. Both the protocol specification and the various LN implementations are open source and available to the public.