Cryptocurrency is a crock of sh*t. (Learning opp)

[jon.a]

Fair enough.
If one of my tenants asks to pay with a "bitcoin" they'll get a hearty laugh and a no. They can do the exchange thing and give me my fiat money.

The blockchain is more fundamental than smartphones.

The blockchain is analogous to HTTP - it's a protocol for exchanging information.

I'm certain your life has been changed by HTTP, since you're here and conversing with the rest of us on the interwebz. The proliferation of blockchain technology will be no less transformative than the spread of the internet.

But, to be fair, I was being hyperbolic in my post. I do that sometimes You won't actually get steamrolled, but you will have no choice in the matter.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[bettereveryday]

The blockchain is more fundamental than smartphones.

The blockchain is analogous to HTTP - it's a protocol for exchanging information.

I'm certain your life has been changed by HTTP, since you're here and conversing with the rest of us on the interwebz. The proliferation of blockchain technology will be no less transformative than the spread of the internet.

But, to be fair, I was being hyperbolic in my post. I do that sometimes You won't actually get steamrolled, but you will have no choice in the matter.

You have to understand that in order for the blockchain to work, entire industries would have to agree to the idea. That's going to take a very long time, most companies are using completely outdated technology. Don't even get me started on the government...

The only companies/people who are invested and believe in blockchain are the tech companies/techies. In order to get businesses/corporations to use blockchain you would have to spend millions upon millions of dollars replacing their already existing infrastructure.

That's not going to happen anytime soon.

If you're a farmer selling eggs to retailers, blockchain would only make sense if the majority of farmers AND retailers agreed to creating/implementing some sort of blockchain infrastructure/transaction method. Otherwise, there's no use and the investment isn't worth it.

Now tell me, how are you going to sell people/businesses on this idea?

 

[lowtek]

You have to understand that in order for the blockchain to work, entire industries would have to agree to the idea. That's going to take a very long time, most companies are using completely outdated technology. Don't even get me started on the government...

The only companies/people who are invested and believe in blockchain are the tech companies/techies. In order to get businesses/corporations to use blockchain you would have to spend millions upon millions of dollars replacing their already existing infrastructure.

That's not going to happen anytime soon.

If you're a farmer selling eggs to retailers, blockchain would only make sense if the majority of farmers AND retailers agreed to creating/implementing some sort of blockchain infrastructure/transaction method.

Now tell me, how are you going to sell people/businesses on this idea?

Who would ever really use the internet? I mean... it's so expensive to hook up all your computers to the information superhighway.... It will take at least 50 years for this technology to proliferate. In the meantime, it'll just be used at universities and government facilities.

When you really think about it... Why would people even want to use it? Who would buy something from someone they've never seen? Why would you trust them with your credit card info?

How would you ever sell people and businesses on that idea?

 

[ApparentHorizon]

Peter Schiff was on the JRE and talked about Bitcoin vs Gold..

TL;DW- Bitcoin will eventually crash. Gold will always remain valuable.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BjqzyqRz_Mc

Doesn't matter, there's cycles everywhere. Bubbles, corrections, rallys...you name it.

Problem is people only "invest" (using that loosely) in 1 financial instrument, then get angry after making 1-2 losing trades.

Meanwhile...
Gold breaks resistance
Tech stocks are killing it
Generic pharma is having a midlife crysis

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[jon.a]

Who would ever really use the internet? I mean... it's so expensive to hook up all your computers to the information superhighway.... It will take at least 50 years for this technology to proliferate. In the meantime, it'll just be used at universities and government facilities.

When you really think about it... Why would people even want to use it? Who would buy something from someone they've never seen? Why would you trust them with your credit card info?

How would you ever sell people and businesses on that idea?

Fair enough again. This is why I try to read every post the @JScott puts out on this topic. He knows people and stuff that I should. I guess that I'm not really completely ignoring it.

 

[bettereveryday]

Who would ever really use the internet? I mean... it's so expensive to hook up all your computers to the information superhighway.... It will take at least 50 years for this technology to proliferate. In the meantime, it'll just be used at universities and government facilities.

When you really think about it... Why would people even want to use it? Who would buy something from someone they've never seen? Why would you trust them with your credit card info?

How would you ever sell people and businesses on that idea?

That is a terrible comparison.

Prior to the internet, there was no internet.

There's are already something similar to a blockchain, it's called a database. Only difference is, is that blockchain is decentralized, allows us to conduct secure transactions that are encrypted, and it would be available for everyone to see but at the same be encrypted and private.

Like I said, companies are already doing just fine with databases and their current infrastructure. Blockchain would completely disrupt their current business operations, cost them millions, and it would be considered risky since it is a new technology/concept that has no proven record aside from crypto.

Companies/businesses are already spending millions upon millions of dollars maintaining/developing their current infrastructure, why would they move to the blockchain?

And blockchain, aside from crypto, is still just a concept. It is not readily available for businesses to adopt and deploy.

As I've stated earlier, lookup the Hyperledger project, it's backed by multi-billion dollar corporations and its an attempt by them to develop this technology and use it at an enterprise level.

It's still in its beginning stages and it looks like complete shit.

 

[G-Man]

Like I said, companies are already doing just fine with databases and their current infrastructure. Blockchain would completely disrupt their current business operations, cost them millions, and it would be considered risky since it is a new technology/concept that has no proven record aside from crypto.

Companies/businesses are already spending millions upon millions of dollars maintaining/developing their current infrastructure, why would they move to the blockchain?

If the world worked that way, there would still be streetcars in every city, freight would travel by coal burning locomotive, the Navy would be using wooden sailing ships, and I'd still have a blackberry.

Why pick a fight, then double down, especially in a zero stakes, anonymous internet situation?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[steelandchrome]

I think enough positives have been explained on both the retail and real world applications and uses as well as the ability to use as an investment so I won't get into that. What I will say is that I am fairly new to it all and have a basic understanding and I think that as it grows on some of the sidechains and alts that people will be using blockchain without knowledge that they are actually doing so and it is the "next big thing". In the last two weeks I have bought, sold, traded, and bet on sports using different crypto and have had a lot of fun doing so. Where I live you cannot gamble online so was I happy to be able to bet in crypto, absolutely! There is another real life example... I can also say I bought in before the big correction and have already recouped all my losses with exception of ETH and have made a lot in LTC, OMG and MTH in the past 24hrs and bought more PAY because I think it is undervalued. I personally track mine compared to USD$ but many track theirs compared to BTC. As its been said there are other threads here and on the inside that are more productive that I'll stay in but this one was productive in the fact of the discussion and training posts by a few members will help others learn more and probably buy in better if they click and read them so I would say thank you to the OP for the drama to bring it more attention. I'd vote against landfill for the amount of good info posted by members other than the OP's rantings.

Anyways, to each his own and if you don't like it even after understanding it then thats cool man. [emoji6]

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[bettereveryday]

If the world worked that way, there would still be streetcars in every city, freight would travel by coal burning locomotive, the Navy would be using wooden sailing ships, and I'd still have a blackberry.

Why pick a fight, then double down, especially in a zero stakes, anonymous internet situation?

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I work in IT, come from generations of people who worked in IT. I see this shit firsthand. Blockchain technology isn't some sort of tangible good like a F*cking car or a smartphone.

If you're a business owner or CEO and you switch over to the blockchain, you would have to spend millions on the transitional process and deploying it, AND on top of that you would have to hire administrators and developers to maintain the infrastructure.

There's only a handful of people who even know wtf a blockchain is, let alone people who can develop and administrate it. Shit, it doesn't even exist yet aside from crypto, so administrators don't even exist yet.

Companies/government agencies are still using technology/infrastructure that was made decades ago. There's still companies/govt agencies out there that hire COBOL developers and programmers because they don't want to change.

But go ahead keep on assuming man

 

[bettereveryday]

Do you guys think the blockchain is some sort of thing you can put on a USB and upload into a computer and call it a F*cking day?

There's a reason why IT is a trillion dollar industry and why companies pay consultants $300 an hr just to tell them, "hey your IT infrastructure is shit, do this instead".

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Digamma]

I still have no F*cking idea what any of you are talking about, which puts me very ironically in the same boat as some of the more cantankerous and opinionated participants in these discussions.

Man, a Nobel prize winner lately has come out saying that crypto is a bubble. In the same interview, he proceeded to openly admit he doesn't know the most elementary things about cryptocurrencies (he didn't know what an ICO is). This is the level of the debate regarding cryptocurrencies. Of course, we are talking about economists here - the only profession where you can be employed while getting everything wrong everytime.
This thread has managed to dig a whole new hole, though.

Companies/government agencies are still using technology/infrastructure that was made decades ago. There's still companies/govt agencies out there that hire COBOL developers and programmers because they don't want to change.

For someone "in IT", you sure manage to not know what you are talking about. Those legacy systems are still up because there is no economic incentive in changing them. It's not a matter of being "tangible" shit, it's a matter of competitive pressure and bottom-line benefits. Especially where IT is a cost center. And yet, that tech is surpassed anyway - proving the opposite of your point.

Why did you choose this particularly stupid hill to die on?
Nobody can predict the future. Bubble, not bubble, it's only one or the other after it happens.

 

[lowtek]

@ op not really sure what you're trying to prove here - except maybe how close minded and hostile to contradicting opinions you are.

Of course new infrastructure and technology is expensive.

So are accountants, compliance departments and fraud.

It's a simple business decision. Does the cost of adopting the blockchain save the business more than the accountants cost?

If yes, then adopt. If no, then wait until it does. The cost of tech drops, the cost of humans doesn't. Eventually those two curves will intersect and the tech will be adopted.

This is very, very simple.

And yes, the internet was an apt comparison. Businesses were doing fine with the telephone and fax system, the precursor to the internet. Before that, they were doing fine with telegraph, and before that, they were doing fine with horse and buggy.

 

[bettereveryday]

Man, a Nobel prize winner lately has come out saying that crypto is a bubble. In the same interview, he proceeded to openly admit he doesn't know the most elementary things about cryptocurrencies (he didn't know what an ICO is). This is the level of the debate regarding cryptocurrencies. Of course, we are talking about economists here - the only profession where you can be employed while getting everything wrong everytime.
This thread has managed to dig a whole new hole, though.

For someone "in IT", you sure manage to not know what you are talking about. Those legacy systems are still up because there is no economic incentive in changing them. It's not a matter of being "tangible" shit, it's a matter of competitive pressure and bottom-line benefits. Especially where IT is a cost center.

Why did you choose this particularly stupid hill to die on?
Nobody can predict the future. Bubble, not bubble, it's only one or the other after it happens.

Dude, that was exactly my point in a few posts above.

Companies/govt agencies are not going to switch to blockchain simply because the idea is brilliant and can change the world. And as far as I know, there would be no economic incentive to change to it anytime soon. Especially when companies are still using outdated technology, I worked at a place that still used tape drives for Christ's sake.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[TonyStark]

I feel like the value of cryptocurrency comes from crowd psychology, or people's belief in it.

Recently Austin had a "gas shortage" because everyone believed we were running out of gas. So, that caused everyone to go crazy and fill up their tank everywhere, thus causing an actual gas shortage.

I feel like this is the same with stocks or whatever hot commodity comes to market.

Someone made some good points about a bitcoins value being in the dollar, just like the dollar is supposed to represent hard coin.

 

[bettereveryday]

@ op not really sure what you're trying to prove here - except maybe how close minded and hostile to contradicting opinions you are.

Of course new infrastructure and technology is expensive.

So are accountants, compliance departments and fraud.

It's a simple business decision. Does the cost of adopting the blockchain save the business more than the accountants cost?

If yes, then adopt. If no, then wait until it does. The cost of tech drops, the cost of humans doesn't. Eventually those two curves will intersect and the tech will be adopted.

This is very, very simple.

And yes, the internet was an apt comparison. Businesses were doing fine with the telephone and fax system, the precursor to the internet. Before that, they were doing fine with telegraph, and before that, they were doing fine with horse and buggy.

Dude it took 50+ years for cloud computing to take off.

Blockchain technology is still being developed.

I'm not bashing the idea, blockchain is beautiful.

But the implementation of the idea has several factors that go into it, politics, money, time, etc

Nobody is being "steamrolled" anytime soon.

 

[G-Man]

You're comparing apples and oranges.

I work in IT, come from generations of people who worked in IT. I see this shit firsthand. Blockchain technology isn't some sort of tangible good like a F*cking car or a smartphone.

If you're a business owner or CEO and you switch over to the blockchain, you would have to spend millions on the transitional process and deploying it, AND on top of that you would have to hire administrators and developers to maintain the infrastructure.

There's only a handful of people who even know wtf a blockchain is, let alone people who can develop and administrate it. Shit, it doesn't even exist yet aside from crypto, so administrators don't even exist yet.

Companies/government agencies are still using technology/infrastructure that was made decades ago. There's still companies/govt agencies out there that hire COBOL developers and programmers because they don't want to change.

But go ahead keep on assuming man

You're missing the forest for the shrubs here. This has nothing to do with the actual technology - you've made the sunk cost fallacy by assuming that because companies have plowed resources into existing systems they won't adopt new ones.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[bettereveryday]

You're missing the forest for the shrubs here. This has nothing to do with the actual technology - you've made the sunk cost fallacy by assuming that because companies have plowed resources into existing systems they won't adopt new ones.

If companies/govt agencies won't transition to systems that are already more efficient, scalable, and cost effective, what makes you think they will transition to blockchain? Plus the transition would take a VERY long time, everyone would have to buy into it.

Like I said, it's not just about the idea itself. It's about the implementation. There's a lot of money, time, and politics that go into these types of decisions. There's reputations, jobs, and millions of dollars on the line.

You might see the blockchain adopted here and there, but it's not changing the world anytime soon.

 

[G-Man]

already

I think you meant to use the word "currently".

FFS, arguing with you is like trying to nail jelly to the wall, and somehow even more pointless.

 

[mom]

Is it a way to make money? Absolutely, there's no denying that. You can invest in cryptocurrency and make tons.

With that being said, that's all it is, a way for people on the internet to make money. It's all one big crock of sh*t that people have bought into (same with the US dollar, but that's a different story).

There is literally no use for cryptocurrency, I have never seen or heard of anyone using cryptocurrency to buy anything, unless its something dark web related.

The whole idea behind cryptocurrency was to put power in the hands of the people, to present an alternative to the Evil Mighty US Dollar.

Funny thing is, the only reason people are investing in cryptocurrency is to make more of that Evil Mighty US Dollar. Go on any crypto site and look at how they valuate different coins, it's all in dollar signs.

How does this crap even make sense?

And all these crypto advocates talking about how the US Dollar will fall, crypto is here to save us , blah blah blah.....do you guys realize the implications behind what it is you are saying? And what about the hypocrisy behind such statements?

The fall of the US Dollar would be bad for almost everybody, it's literally a reset button on civilization as we know it.

"Well, the US Dollar has no value. It's fiat currency, blah blah"

If the US Dollar has no value, how the f*ck does cryptocurrency have any value?

Sorry to say this but what you "believe" and the facts are worlds apart. I expected better.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[masterneme]

There's are already something similar to a blockchain, it's called a database. Only difference is, is that blockchain is decentralized, allows us to conduct secure transactions that are encrypted, and it would be available for everyone to see but at the same be encrypted and private.

Exactly.

Like I said, companies are already doing just fine with databases and their current infrastructure. Blockchain would completely disrupt their current business operations, cost them millions, and it would be considered risky since it is a new technology/concept that has no proven record aside from crypto.

Which is one of the reasons why no one is using blockchain technology aside from cryptocurrencies. There is no use for it.

Companies/businesses are already spending millions upon millions of dollars maintaining/developing their current infrastructure, why would they move to the blockchain?

They have no reason to move to blockchain technology, why would they?

And blockchain, aside from crypto, is still just a concept. It is not readily available for businesses to adopt and deploy.

This is not true, AFAIK the concept of blockchains comes from the mid 90s and it's been in use for almost a decade. It is readily available and you have (open) source code and whitepapers for whatever project you want.

Blockchain is an already proven and tested technology that has no use in other fields different than cryptocurrencies but some people are so in love with it (because it makes money out of thin air) that they're trying hard to push the world to use it on everything even though it's extremely impractical.

Blockchain tech reminds me of P2P/Bittorrent. You have some data, no one owns it and its content is chunked and distributed through many peers. The details about the content and peers can be encrypted and anonymized.

Bittorrent has been with us since the early 2000s and before that we had eMule which was an evolution of eDonkey2000 with its edk protocol that later evolved into Kademlia, a fully decentralized, anonymous and encrypted network to transfer data.

Now in 2017 no one gives a f*ck about torrents nor Kad because being a distributed network is a huge weakness if there are no nodes, it becomes very slow. There was a big spike in usage when the FBI closed Megaupload but it all went back to normal after that.

In other words, the only reason why we had a surge of P2P transferring was because the mainstream tech that was already available stopped being available.

What is the mainstream "tech" in the currency context? $, €, etc. As I've stated many times, unless cryptos allow us to do the same or better we already do with money it's only going to be a "side-tech" used for speculation and punctual transfers. Because of its nature cryptos are limited by the same weakness than P2P transferring and it's unavoidable.

Seriously, read this Internet protocol suite - Wikipedia or this OSI model - Wikipedia It seems like all these superfans deny the existence of the physical layer as if blockchain technology could exist in ether (pun intended) and real hardware wasn't necessary to support it.

The fact is, if there are no nodes it becomes slow, and if miners don't make money there will be no nodes. There can't be recurring payments nor chargebacks and many other problems that CAN'T BE SOLVED because the tech is what it is, there has to be sacrifices for the benefits of decentralization and privacy.

Having said all this... just let it go. You already stated your view, you'll not convince believers and they'll not convince you, it's and endless discussion.

 

[bettereveryday]

To address all of these points (and more points that you made), I like to think about blockchain the way I think about TCP/IP...

TCP/IP is the technology that made the Internet what the Internet is. Most people still have never heard of TCP/IP, but that doesn't mean they don't use it everyday (every minute?) and it has changed the world in just 25 short years. Go ask someone if they can explain what TCP/IP is, and when they say, "No," ask them if they use the Internet or a smartphone. You see, it's possible for a technology to fundamentally change how the world works without most people even understanding that technology.

If I would have asked you in 1990 whether TCP/IP would ever be adopted by the masses, I'm guessing you have responded the way you did above ("If you explained what cryptocurrency is to the common man and woman they would have no idea what the F*ck we are talking about."). But, now that we have 25 years of retrospection, we can confidently say that understanding what the F*ck the technology is had no bearing on whether people would use it and come to rely on it. I would venture to say blockchain could easily sit in the same category.

And I can relate your argument, "There's are already something similar to a blockchain, it's called a database" to TCP/IP as well. You think TCP/IP was the first layered communication protocol? Nope. Before TCP/IP, there was packet switching. Most people considered it pretty good, and if you would have asked the typical technologically minded person whether we needed something different/better than packet switching, they probably would have said, "Why would we need something different?"

So clearly, the argument that there is something similar isn't much of an argument, unless the argument continues, "It's also better." A database ISN'T better than blockchain. While there are some benefits (confidentiality, performance), blockchain has some very clear benefits that far outweigh those drawbacks. First, it's decentralized. I discussed the benefit of that in a previous post, so I won't rehash it (no pun intended for those who wondered). Second, it's immutable -- there's no way data is ever going to be changed/forked without consensus among those running the network.

When you put those two things together, you get the BIGGEST benefit of blockchain over databases -- blockchain can be used to STORE ASSETS. Would you trust your $4000/token bitcoin in a database? Would you want the deed to your house to be stored in a database (yes, it currently is, which is why many of us keep hard-copies in addition)? But, with blockchain, I'm comfortable storing my 6-figures worth of cryptocurrency, and will be comfortable if/when it gets to 7- or 8-figures as well. I would never say that about a database.

As for your next point: I doubt 95% of people are willing to read a book on how to use "money" and why they should trust this new "money", I'm pretty sure the same could be said about using PayPal to buy stuff on the Internet 20 years ago. I used to work for PayPal (well, eBay, after they purchased PayPal), and yes, in the early days, there was a LOT of concern by users over trust and even how the interfaces worked. But, what do you know, here we are a few years later, and I don't know too many people who aren't willing to transfer money with PayPal or willing to buy stuff on Amazon.

The fact is, as the technology becomes more matures, the interfaces to the technology do a better job of obfuscating the underlying technical details. I remember reading online newsgroups in the early 1990s without Windows or any user interface. It was all text based. It sucked. But guess what, that quickly changed, as the technology didn't take long to transition from "only used by developers" to "used by the whole world."



Again, the same could be said about TCP/IP and the Internet 25 years ago. But, within a few years, adoption went to near 100%.

As for just a concept, that's just flat-out wrong. There are governments testing blockchain for real world applications, Fortune 500 companies like IBM and Microsoft starting to build blockchain applications, etc. Here's a great example of how blockchain is being used to streamline the operations of one of the most complicated operations in the world:

IBM and Maersk Partnership to Streamline Supply Chains via Blockchain Technology - Crypto Insider - Bitcoin and Blockchain News

Again, I don't know for certain that blockchain will be the next TCP/IP or Internet, but as of today, I have no reason to believe it won't. Unless it's supplanted by something better, I also don't see why it wouldn't be. The benefits are obvious, and the money being poured into it means that maturity should come sooner rather than later.

You, my friend, are much smarter than I am so I will defer to you. I did not see things from those angles till you brought it up, and your example makes complete sense.

 

[MJ DeMarco]

If one of my tenants asks to pay with a "bitcoin" they'll get a hearty laugh and a no.

You, my friend, are much smarter than I am so I will defer to you. I did not see things from those angles till you brought it up, and your example makes complete sense.

Kudos to you for actually considering the information. My faith in humanity is restored.

I too have learned something here, which is why I let this thread ride.

Rep dollars and thanks should be going to @JScott for the education.

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Coalission]

You came into this thread and made literally no valid points, all you did was attack "OP".

That's called an ad hominem.

How about you actually contribute something of worth?

J Scott came in and did that and moved how I think about cryptocurrency.

And to justify the validity of cryptocurrency because, "it's happening whether I like it or not", doesn't even make sense. That's something a 12 year old would say.

Selfies are also happening, whether I like it or not. That doesn't make taking selfies not stupid.

I didn't attack or insult you, I said your attention-whoring is transparent, and only because I've done it before.

As far as me contributing, I did enough in the 20+ page thread that you decided to ignore because you thought your opinion was so unique it deserved its own thread.

It's happening whether you like it or not. Convince me otherwise.

 

[Deleted50669]

Yea, DC is about as trustworthy as a heroin addict in a cut house.

Can confirm.

 

[Sequential]

I got burnt by Bitcoin but I still think it is valid. At the end of the day my coins were generated so I lost $0.

I know plenty of legit places that have or do accept bitcoin. I bought a $10k gaming PC and paid with bitcoin I am still using it now.... Overstock allow it. You can buy Amazon gift cards with it and then use them on Amazon or Amazon Pay everywhere else.

Not to mention you can exchange it for fiat currency in small amount.

The problem with bitcoin is exchanging large amounts. Say you have 400,000 bitcoins, that is around 1.8 billion USD. How do you exchange that exactly?

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[Sequential]

My uncle (actual real uncle lol) came into this country without knowing a lick of English and became a millionaire. Only in America, man.

Earlier on you claimed USD to be worthless.

Does your uncle know that you spout nonsensical piffle on the internet?

Does he know that you value all his hard work at $0 because you think the dollar is worthless?

 

[juan917]

That is a terrible comparison.

Prior to the internet, there was no internet.

There's are already something similar to a blockchain, it's called a database. Only difference is, is that blockchain is decentralized, allows us to conduct secure transactions that are encrypted, and it would be available for everyone to see but at the same be encrypted and private.

Like I said, companies are already doing just fine with databases and their current infrastructure. Blockchain would completely disrupt their current business operations, cost them millions, and it would be considered risky since it is a new technology/concept that has no proven record aside from crypto.

Companies/businesses are already spending millions upon millions of dollars maintaining/developing their current infrastructure, why would they move to the blockchain?

And blockchain, aside from crypto, is still just a concept. It is not readily available for businesses to adopt and deploy.

As I've stated earlier, lookup the Hyperledger project, it's backed by multi-billion dollar corporations and its an attempt by them to develop this technology and use it at an enterprise level.

It's still in its beginning stages and it looks like complete shit.

You aren't considering Smart Contracts which is just as strong of an innovation.

Also, centralized datastore are a good idea? See recent Equifax hack

Cryto tech processes a very large amount of transactions everyday. Isn't that a "proven record"

 

[juan917]

First of all, to all of you on your high horses, and to all of you who talk as if you are enlightened due to your support of cryptocurrency...

I am quite aware what blockchain technology is, I am quite aware what smart contracts are, I have/had nothing negative to say about those ideas/technologies.

I have spent hours reading the code on the Hyperledger project, a project based on developing blockchain technology for industry use (sponsored by companies like IBM, Cisco, Red Hat, etc). I even a took a course on blockchain technology through IBM. Only reason I point this is out is because you guys are making it seem I am ignorant about the TECHNOLOGY behind the currency, which I see great value in.

How many of you even use the technology behind these cryptocurrencies? Have any of you used or developed a smart contract? Any of you know how to code or read Solidity?

Have any of you developed or used an application based on the Ethereum blockchain?

Has anyone here used Sia Coin in order to rent out hardware space on someone else's computer?

Is there even a use for any cryptocurrency outside of Bitcoin and Ethereum?

I bet most of you that have experience using cryptocurrency never even used it outside a a retail context, or for investment purposes.

Just read this post. DApps are meant for the end user. You will probably access a website like you normally would but the tech behind the scenes could be using blockchain

"DApp is an abbreviated form for decentralized application. A DApp has its backend code running on a decentralized peer-to-peer network. Contrast this with an app where the backend code is running on centralized servers"

 

Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum: Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.

[$pendi]

OP is so terribly close-minded.... Crypto is not for you. Move on. You probably barely understand how a computer works.

 

[biophase]

First of all, to all of you on your high horses, and to all of you who talk as if you are enlightened due to your support of cryptocurrency...

I am quite aware what blockchain technology is, I am quite aware what smart contracts are, I have/had nothing negative to say about those ideas/technologies.

I have spent hours reading the code on the Hyperledger project, a project based on developing blockchain technology for industry use (sponsored by companies like IBM, Cisco, Red Hat, etc). I even a took a course on blockchain technology through IBM. Only reason I point this is out is because you guys are making it seem I am ignorant about the TECHNOLOGY behind the currency, which I see great value in.

I don't know if you are aware of how you come off on your posts. You do not sound informed or educated on what you are talking about. This is why you aren't getting many actual counter arguments on your position.

I was reading a reply that said "Which is one of the reasons why no one is using blockchain technology aside from cryptocurrencies. There is no use for it." Naturally, I thought it was you writing the post. Then I got to the long paragraph and as I read it, I was thinking, "wow, bettereveryday is typing out some actual arguments." As I read it further I thought "this does not sound like him." So I scrolled up and saw it was Masterneme's post, not you.

This is an example of how to argue or defend your position intelligently. Now, I may not agree with Masterneme, but I am more apt to take the time to reply to him just because of the way he is communicating.