I think during this blockchain only for bitcoin wallet
but I think the best thing that bitcoin is owned blockchain
Topic: lol: blockchain - yes; bitcoin - no (Read 3169 times)
So let me get this straight, anything new that has no laws or regulations related to it is labeled as legal until stated otherwise? I was not aware that this was the case in the USA.
That is correct. The 'authorities' cannot charge a person for made-up infractions*. All prosecution must tie back to written law, specifically legislated.
*Well, it does happen sometimes. The protections are not infallible. However, such prosecution rarely stands under scrutiny of appeal, if it even makes it to the first stages of prosecution.
Quote
I do not deny that assertion, however I would say that one of the main reasons for complete anonymity are illegal activities. I do realize (as I'm part of such a group) that there are people who wish to stay outside of the system and stay anonymous. However, coins such as Bitcoin (needs a bit more work, i.e. something as confidential transactions ) with their "pseudoanonymity" should be enough.
Pseudoanonimity may be enough for you. It may not be enough for others -- whether or not they desire it for only fully legal purposes. Accordingly, your 'should be enough' -- being stated from your own perspective -- may be irrelevant from the perspective of another. Fortunately, your statement that you don't need actual anonymity does not bar this ability to others.
Quote
A coin does not have to be completely anonymous by default else making it legal or proclaiming it as a currency is going to be harder.
Maybe we have some sort of philosophical breach here. I cannot imagine any legitimacy to any regime that asserts that one can be imprisoned for things not specifically enumerated as being illegal. I guess I've divulged that I live in the USA. Here, things must be specifically prohibited by law for them to be illegal. Where do you live that enacts (what seems to me to be) 'law by whim of superiors'? Is this widespread in the world?
With that is background, I don't believe that much of the world needs to worry about 'making it legal', as it already is legal. Of course, I've not lived in all corners of the globe.
OK - this I think I understand. Not necessarily agree, but understand.
In the so-called 'free world' -- of which the USA, despite our accelerating slide into totalitarianism, is still a part -- all things not specifically legislated as being 'illegal' are fully legal. It may be different in other corners of the world. (Why would any people accept such a default?)
-snip-
Incidentally:
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?
So let me get this straight, anything new that has no laws or regulations related to it is labeled as legal until stated otherwise? I was not aware that this was the case in the USA.In the so-called 'free world' -- of which the USA, despite our accelerating slide into totalitarianism, is still a part -- all things not specifically legislated as being 'illegal' are fully legal. It may be different in other corners of the world. (Why would any people accept such a default?)
-snip-
Incidentally:
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?
I do not deny that assertion, however I would say that one of the main reasons for complete anonymity are illegal activities. I do realize (as I'm part of such a group) that there are people who wish to stay outside of the system and stay anonymous. However, coins such as Bitcoin (needs a bit more work, i.e. something as confidential transactions ) with their "pseudoanonymity" should be enough.
A coin does not have to be completely anonymous by default else making it legal or proclaiming it as a currency is going to be harder.
Update: I never stated that I do not need anonymity.
-snip-
In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.
I guess you just misunderstood me. Pseudo-anonymity is definitely something that has helped Bitcoin become regulated or even classified as a currency in some places. Governments are definitely going to be against fully anonymous coins because of the dangers of money laundering (some are even against Bitcoin for this very reason). When I say that they can't become legal, I did not imply that they were illegal (now). I thought that things weren't legal unless declared so, thus being in a neutral stance? In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.
I was talking about regulation in legal norm. Algorithmic rulesets are irrelevant to this.
OK - this I think I understand. Not necessarily agree, but understand.
In the so-called 'free world' -- of which the USA, despite our accelerating slide into totalitarianism, is still a part -- all things not specifically legislated as being 'illegal' are fully legal. It may be different in other corners of the world. (Why would any people accept such a default?)
Governments may try to ban fully anonymous currency. I am unaware of any significant countries doing so as of yet. If they stay sleeping at the switch for too much longer, they may miss their opportunity to make such currencies illegal. The power that governments have -- while significant -- is limited by the demands of the people. If the people refuse a government mandate en masse, their government's legalistic proclamations become powerless. If enough poeple become invested in a fully anonymous currency before their government gets around to banning it, there is a non-negligible possiblity that the people will refuse to abide by such a directive. When a people is determined that their government shall change course or be abolished, the people's will is usually done.
I think I understood what you initially meant by :
Quote
...and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature.
Perhaps my response was unclear. My point is that all the regulation that is proper is embodied in the algorithmic ruleset. I stand by my assertion that any legalistic regulation is improper.
Incidentally:
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?
-snip-
In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.
I guess you just misunderstood me. Pseudo-anonymity is definitely something that has helped Bitcoin become regulated or even classified as a currency in some places. Governments are definitely going to be against fully anonymous coins because of the dangers of money laundering (some are even against Bitcoin for this very reason). When I say that they can't become legal, I did not imply that they were illegal (now). I thought that things weren't legal unless declared so, thus being in a neutral stance? In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.
I was talking about regulation in legal norm. Algorithmic rulesets are irrelevant to this.
I thought Monero wasn't able to be transparent but I remember reading Monero also had an inbuilt feature to make payments transparent if the user wanted. I think this is a good thing. I don't think Bitcoin the way it is now, would be a good idea to be mainstream, it needs to be more anonymous. Greg Maxwell has commented on this, he said he doesn't want to live in a world with a global transparent ledger, that's why he wants to introduce the confidential transactions BIP. I think he is right, and a global transparent ledger like we have now is NSAs wet dream. We need a more obfuscated way to deal with transactions in a standardized way.
I'm not aware of the exact functionality that Monero offers. I've been trying to stay away from things that shills promote out of their respective section.Well this suggestion might be actually a good thing. I looked around and it is related to Blockstream. However, I think that there should be no change to the default anonymity of Bitcoin, but rather just add this functionality.
They show more interest in blockchain because blockchain is good and you can copy blockchain. And because Bitcoin cannot copy adoption.
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
http://moraluniversal.com/en/why-bitcoin-cannot-win/
This is the third story today by someone who asserts their brilliance by saying: "we are interested in blockchain; bitcoin not so much". It is meant to show you are a bigshot if you can put forth another version of this over-used line.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
The day I wake up and I can look at reddit for news without seeing news of a bank saying how cool the blockchain is but not mentioning Bitcoin, that will be a good one.
Off with your head!* Bitcoin revolutionizes illegal actions -- does it hold your interest?
-snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Wrong. There's a reason for which Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and you obviously aren't seeing it. -snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Misinterpreting words much yourself? I most certainly did NOT claim that there is no reason for Bitcoin to be pseudo-anonymous. Though perhaps you might enlighten by explaining exactly what you see as the reason for something such as Bitcoin to be pseudo-anonymous. What benefit, exactly, does this bring in your estimation?
My claim was there are reasons other than illegal activities for true anonymity - an assertion by which I stand. Are you denying this assertion?
Quote
DASH/Monero/similar coins can't become legal...
Perhaps you've not been paying attention. In my little corner of the universe DASH, Monero, and similar coins ARE fully legal. I don't know where you live where the so-called authorities have proclaimed that they are punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.
Quote
...and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature.
All the regulation that such a coin needs is accomplished by its algorithmic rulesets.
Incidentally, if you want me to 'stop misinterpreting your words', you are going to have to be more clear about writing exactly what you mean.
Off with your head!* Bitcoin revolutionizes illegal actions -- does it hold your interest?
-snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Wrong. There's a reason for which Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and you obviously aren't seeing it. DASH/Monero/similar coins can't become legal and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature. -snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Also, stop misinterpreting my words.
The point of hashing and the blockchain is attaining distributed consensus in spite of being open to the whole world. If it's for "internal applications", there's no need for a blockchain. An ordinary database will do and, as a bonus, won't be open to transaction analysis and network attacks like Bitcoin is.
Banks get hacked from time to time. I wonder where you came up with the assumption that their distributed ledgers will not be susceptible to attack?I understand what you mean OP. "blockchain" has become a buzzword now and meaningless like the word "disruptive". I believe that people who are dismissive of bitcoin and favour blockchain probably know little about either of them.
I do believe that blockchain will outlive bitcoin though. there is more uses for it than a single currency.
Here is a nice article that calls the separation ludicrous. Instead of dismissing either, people should be cherishing both blockchain technology and Bitcoin.I do believe that blockchain will outlive bitcoin though. there is more uses for it than a single currency.
Obviously, there are groups that are starting to become scared of Bitcoin as it might harm/destroy their corrupt businesses. However, I do agree that blockchain technology has much more potential than just being used in a currency.
I thought Monero wasn't able to be transparent but I remember reading Monero also had an inbuilt feature to make payments transparent if the user wanted. I think this is a good thing. I don't think Bitcoin the way it is now, would be a good idea to be mainstream, it needs to be more anonymous. Greg Maxwell has commented on this, he said he doesn't want to live in a world with a global transparent ledger, that's why he wants to introduce the confidential transactions BIP. I think he is right, and a global transparent ledger like we have now is NSAs wet dream. We need a more obfuscated way to deal with transactions in a standardized way.
the technology and concept about blockchain is very great
and i think bitcoin still lacks some things that's why it is not going too mainstream and
that's why in my opinion why altcoins exists
because they are making coins that has more developed features that bitcoin lacks and does not have
and i think bitcoin still lacks some things that's why it is not going too mainstream and
that's why in my opinion why altcoins exists
because they are making coins that has more developed features that bitcoin lacks and does not have
To elaborate on that airplane metaphor -
Blockchain is the engine, but network is its wings.
Sure you can produce a new blockchain in a matter of
minutes.. but can you make it fly, that is the question.
What are the incentives for users to run nodes for a
long term? We've seen a lot of planes crash.
Off with your head!* Bitcoin revolutionizes illegal actions -- does it hold your interest?
-snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Wrong. There's a reason for which Bitcoin is pseudo-anonymous and you obviously aren't seeing it. DASH/Monero/similar coins can't become legal and regulated properly because of their anonymous nature. -snip-
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
Also, stop misinterpreting my words.
The point of hashing and the blockchain is attaining distributed consensus in spite of being open to the whole world. If it's for "internal applications", there's no need for a blockchain. An ordinary database will do and, as a bonus, won't be open to transaction analysis and network attacks like Bitcoin is.
Banks get hacked from time to time. I wonder where you came up with the assumption that their distributed ledgers will not be susceptible to attack?I understand what you mean OP. "blockchain" has become a buzzword now and meaningless like the word "disruptive". I believe that people who are dismissive of bitcoin and favour blockchain probably know little about either of them.
I do believe that blockchain will outlive bitcoin though. there is more uses for it than a single currency.
Here is a nice article that calls the separation ludicrous. Instead of dismissing either, people should be cherishing both blockchain technology and Bitcoin.I do believe that blockchain will outlive bitcoin though. there is more uses for it than a single currency.
Obviously, there are groups that are starting to become scared of Bitcoin as it might harm/destroy their corrupt businesses. However, I do agree that blockchain technology has much more potential than just being used in a currency.
where exactly are the ridiculous amounts of money being spent? a bank can implement their own blockchain by deploying a server in each region. they can mine with the server CPU because it is not an arms race to get more hashing power. with this small Blockchain network they can store all customers transactions in a decentralized and secure fashion. Remember the 51% attack is based on a percent of hashing power, all bank nodes can mine on CPUs to secure the network like we once did.
I think too many people are fixated on the Bitcoin Blockchain as the solution for everything. For internal applications where there is no hashing power arms race, creating a new network is a perfectly good application of the technology.
The point of hashing and the blockchain is attaining distributed consensus in spite of being open to the whole world. If it's for "internal applications", there's no need for a blockchain. An ordinary database will do and, as a bonus, won't be open to transaction analysis and network attacks like Bitcoin is.
a bank can implement their own blockchain by deploying a server in each region. they can mine with the server CPU because it is not an arms race to get more hashing power.
Mmm Hmm. And how, pray tell, will these 'private' blockchains fare in terms of security, when Bitcoin is already secured by the largest application of computing power ever amassed by all of humanity against a single task?
I think the entire 'interested in blockchain, but not Bitcoin' trope will stand some serious revision.
Right now, the banks are making their first furtive steps at acknowledging that this technology will completely turn their world upside down. They've ruled the roost for a century, and are utterly unable to picture a world where they do not get to write the terms. They see the blockchain coming, and their hubris has them imagining that they can divorce the blockchain's benefits from the very thing that secures it.
Which step is denial?
I've also been wondering how these "private blockchains" will work. Are they just centralized database called "blockchain". If there are many players, how do we ensure consensus; how to prevent 51% attack?
a bank can implement their own blockchain by deploying a server in each region. they can mine with the server CPU because it is not an arms race to get more hashing power.
Mmm Hmm. And how, pray tell, will these 'private' blockchains fare in terms of security, when Bitcoin is already secured by the largest application of computing power ever amassed by all of humanity against a single task?
I think the entire 'interested in blockchain, but not Bitcoin' trope will stand some serious revision.
Right now, the banks are making their first furtive steps at acknowledging that this technology will completely turn their world upside down. They've ruled the roost for a century, and are utterly unable to picture a world where they do not get to write the terms. They see the blockchain coming, and their hubris has them imagining that they can divorce the blockchain's benefits from the very thing that secures it.
Which step is denial?
I think blockchain is the most Popular wallet ...
The topic is not the "Blockchain Wallet", the product maintained by the people that own the domain 'blockchain.com'. The topic is the Blockchain - the fundamental structure of computer science that sits at the heart of Bitcoin and (almost) all alts, that forms its shared ledger.
I really don't care about things that are going to revolutionize illegal actions and neither should you.
Off with your head!* Bitcoin revolutionizes illegal actions -- does it hold your interest?
Any tool can be used for good or for bad. Bitcoin's revolution for good is insuperable from its revolution for bad. The good outweighs the bad, so it is a net benefit to society.
If you cannot see any reason for anonymity other than illegal activities, then you have a very narrow scope of imagination.
* In a tongue-in-cheek Red Queen sense, not in a literal ISIS-like sense.
This is the third story today by someone who asserts their brilliance by saying: "we are interested in blockchain; bitcoin not so much". It is meant to show you are a bigshot if you can put forth another version of this over-used line.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
Here is one: http://www.cityam.com/220231/why-i-chose-float-fintech-business-london
Here is another: c-touts-blockchain-tech-for-trade-finance/
It reminds me of the time an English man was explaining to his son on an airplane that: 'it is the wings that makes the airplane fly'. I immediately thought - it's the fucking engine that makes it fly - and the rudder too, and the cockpit too, and the pilot too. Even the landing gear - although I'd have to argue the landing gear makes it fly again.
There isn't such thing as Bitcoin or blockchain. Bitcoin includes a blockchain and a bunch of other stuff. Go ahead, try to make your blockchain without some bitcoin behind it. Let's see where that will get you.
People need to quit showing how smart they are by expressing their keen interest in the 'blockchain' while at the same time saying 'bitcoin' isn't so interesting. All this really does is show you don't understand cryptocurrency. There is not blockchain without bitcoin.
The Blockchain is beautiful technology. The Bitcoin network is the greatest example of this beautiful technology in action. However not all applications of the Blockchain will be in the public sphere, for example Western Union might create a Blockchain where their 'Public' ledger is located within their country HQ nodes. Banks might create a Blockchain for storing customers accounts, the nodes are located in each regional headquarters (or even in each bank branch!).
The point is there really are good applications for the blockchain outside the Bitcoin network. We should not feel threatened by these, they are not applications as they are not competing with Bitcoin which is a cryptocurrency in the public domain.
Bitcoin is strong not only because of its network but because its technology has not been disproven. I personally welcome any private companies investing in R&D in the blockchain as it only benefits us all in the end.
BTW your aeroplane analogy doesn't fly with me, the Bitcoin network could be represented by the the airports and flight routes which you didn't mention, the rest is all part of the Blockchain.
There's no need to invest ridiculous amount of money on your own blockchain if you want a different behavior, you just use side-chains once properly implemented so everything stays within the Bitcoin security.
where exactly are the ridiculous amounts of money being spent? a bank can implement their own blockchain by deploying a server in each region. they can mine with the server CPU because it is not an arms race to get more hashing power. with this small Blockchain network they can store all customers transactions in a decentralized and secure fashion. Remember the 51% attack is based on a percent of hashing power, all bank nodes can mine on CPUs to secure the network like we once did.
I think too many people are fixated on the Bitcoin Blockchain as the solution for everything. For internal applications where there is no hashing power arms race, creating a new network is a perfectly good application of the technology.
Having centralized blockchains is indeed an improvement over what banks have now, but make no mistake, being part of a global decentralized blockchain (bitcoins one aka the best) is even better. Andreas explains it in this video at about the end:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jqpKEHYGE0
What some people don't understand is that the bitcoins are the only incentive to keep the blockchain running. If the bitcoins were not valuable, then no one would "mine" and there would be no more blockchain. For the blockchain to exist, the currency has to exist. It's part of the solution.
The Blockchain Revolution Gets Endorsement in Wall Street Survey
Bitcoin supporters argue the software that makes the digital currency possible could accelerate trading on Wall Street. A new survey suggests financial-services professionals are on board.
Greenwich Associates found 94 percent of respondents say blockchain -- the ledger that drives bitcoin -- could be used in finance, according to a report to be released Wednesday. The software is touted as a way to speed up and simplify how trades of everything from stocks to loans and derivatives are processed.
...
“It is not bitcoin itself that has the potential for changing the institutional capital markets. The blockchain, the technology that allows bitcoin to exist and be transferred safely without an intermediary, presents a much bigger opportunity for financial services firms.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/the-blockchain-revolution-gets-endorsement-in-wall-street-survey
@TrueBeliever
of course you can do that. it is like an Intranet. alot of companies have Intranets and will have internal blockchains maybe.
Bitcoin supporters argue the software that makes the digital currency possible could accelerate trading on Wall Street. A new survey suggests financial-services professionals are on board.
Greenwich Associates found 94 percent of respondents say blockchain -- the ledger that drives bitcoin -- could be used in finance, according to a report to be released Wednesday. The software is touted as a way to speed up and simplify how trades of everything from stocks to loans and derivatives are processed.
...
“It is not bitcoin itself that has the potential for changing the institutional capital markets. The blockchain, the technology that allows bitcoin to exist and be transferred safely without an intermediary, presents a much bigger opportunity for financial services firms.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-22/the-blockchain-revolution-gets-endorsement-in-wall-street-survey
@TrueBeliever
of course you can do that. it is like an Intranet. alot of companies have Intranets and will have internal blockchains maybe.
Jump to: