The price of bitcoin is going crazy. It feels like 2013 again. In the past weekends have been pretty pivotal. This one is going to count.
,
,
Friday, 19 May 2017
Intellectual Centralisation
I'm starting to get the feeling that in the future wizards type characters of our fantasy novels may actually come to be. Sorcerers of code and finance, shamans which future minions will come to to fix tablets and robots, for life advise and for mystical financial support.
With the lightning network We are adding layer to bitcoin, something that most people already struggled to understand. I didn't make it through the lightning networks white paper, The bitcoin white paper in comparison could be read to a four year old as a bed time story. For me the lightning network might have to remain in the magical category. That is like the mysterious inner workings current global financial system or how the hell i swipe the eftpos card and then the shop owners lets me take stuff. Where before bitcoin was fully explainable I think the lighting network will remain in the to hard basket "Don't worry it just works".
We don't want bitcoin and crypto currency as a whole to be come to become to complex, because in a way that would make it like the financial system it is built to replace. The progression of programing and the growth of the market is a natural force of intellectual centralisation. Though necessary, the mechanics of this kind of programing are beyond the general public. We need to actively resist complexity and the lack of education or it intellectual centralisation will inevitably happen.
Some bitcoiners love to show off their knowledge when discussing and explaining bitcoin, but this excludes some people from really participating. This defeats the dencetralised ideals on which bitcoin is supposed to be founded. Many new buyers of bitcoin are completely unaware of how it really works. Others feel that its not worth trying to understand. The concept of transaction fees rising, in itself can be confusing. That's not to mention quantum physics, string theory, micro processors, AI, interstellar travel and the big ban that us nerd talk about at bitcoin meetups. We don't want people to feel excluded from a global revolution because they think that they are not smart enough.
Old bitcoiners dream about the Higgs Boson and Astronomy whilst they HODL their millions, but many new enthusiasts don't have a clue. I'm not sure we want to impose nerd culture on the general public we need to ease them into a full enlightenment.And without coming across cultish, its a fine line. I'm a fan of keeping bitcoin as simple as possible and not blowing nubies minds when we explain to them "how bitcoin works", the price lately is enough to do that.
With the lightning network We are adding layer to bitcoin, something that most people already struggled to understand. I didn't make it through the lightning networks white paper, The bitcoin white paper in comparison could be read to a four year old as a bed time story. For me the lightning network might have to remain in the magical category. That is like the mysterious inner workings current global financial system or how the hell i swipe the eftpos card and then the shop owners lets me take stuff. Where before bitcoin was fully explainable I think the lighting network will remain in the to hard basket "Don't worry it just works".
We don't want bitcoin and crypto currency as a whole to be come to become to complex, because in a way that would make it like the financial system it is built to replace. The progression of programing and the growth of the market is a natural force of intellectual centralisation. Though necessary, the mechanics of this kind of programing are beyond the general public. We need to actively resist complexity and the lack of education or it intellectual centralisation will inevitably happen.
Some bitcoiners love to show off their knowledge when discussing and explaining bitcoin, but this excludes some people from really participating. This defeats the dencetralised ideals on which bitcoin is supposed to be founded. Many new buyers of bitcoin are completely unaware of how it really works. Others feel that its not worth trying to understand. The concept of transaction fees rising, in itself can be confusing. That's not to mention quantum physics, string theory, micro processors, AI, interstellar travel and the big ban that us nerd talk about at bitcoin meetups. We don't want people to feel excluded from a global revolution because they think that they are not smart enough.
Old bitcoiners dream about the Higgs Boson and Astronomy whilst they HODL their millions, but many new enthusiasts don't have a clue. I'm not sure we want to impose nerd culture on the general public we need to ease them into a full enlightenment.And without coming across cultish, its a fine line. I'm a fan of keeping bitcoin as simple as possible and not blowing nubies minds when we explain to them "how bitcoin works", the price lately is enough to do that.
Thursday, 18 May 2017
The Power of the Node
The decentralised power of the bitcoin node has proved itself over the last 6 months. But as many of us have turned off our full nodes the reality is that power struggle between miners and users and centralisation continues. It may never end. But then there is UASF. I also find "Emergent Consensus" by the BU guys a little bit scary. The key to this is to get involved.
Bitseed, however are offering a nice quite solution.you just plug it in to your modem, now you have a seed, enough to save the network through an EMP mega storm. I feel safe knowing these are being sent all over the world.
https://bitseed.org/product/core/
10 watts!
Bitseed, however are offering a nice quite solution.you just plug it in to your modem, now you have a seed, enough to save the network through an EMP mega storm. I feel safe knowing these are being sent all over the world.
https://bitseed.org/product/core/
Sunday, 7 May 2017
One Moon Rocket or Multiple Coin Space Exploration?
Some feel now that bitcoin is already at the moon. Alternative crypto currencies have been gaining on this feeling. The metaphor might need to be drawn out into general space exploration. There is a lot happening at once. Where altcoins where once obscure they are now becoming well known. Overall maker cap of crypto currencies is over $40 billion USD.
Litecoin is at $29
Etherium is at $93
Dash is at $102
Monero is at $30
Zcash is at $104
Doge is at a tenth of a cent $0.001! That makes all us Dogeillionares, USD thousandares! Pretty good for a fun time coin.
We might have to get used to the idea of many space explorations. 10x is happening for some of the 100's of altcoins on the charts, 20% plus gains is common. Bitcoin is now testing $1600 USD. I get a feeling that someday we will be talking about a bitcoin mars landing.
Litecoin is at $29
Etherium is at $93
Dash is at $102
Monero is at $30
Zcash is at $104
Doge is at a tenth of a cent $0.001! That makes all us Dogeillionares, USD thousandares! Pretty good for a fun time coin.
We might have to get used to the idea of many space explorations. 10x is happening for some of the 100's of altcoins on the charts, 20% plus gains is common. Bitcoin is now testing $1600 USD. I get a feeling that someday we will be talking about a bitcoin mars landing.
Bitcoin Hovers Over $1500 USD
The total market cap has grown to over $26 billion USD with the price making rapid and consistent gains. The question is whether the existing infrastructure justifies this? This graphic represents bitcoins digital city.
Tuesday, 11 April 2017
Sunday, 9 April 2017
Do High Transaction Fees Give More Meaningful Transactions?
The block size debate is reaching a new higher level, we may never get over it. With the slow propagation of segregated witness and the heavy transaction load on the bitcoin network seen in the last months as the price retests $1200USD. The once simple debate, it has now become philosophical and expansive. It can be polarising, we now have bitcoin Unlimited being proposed rather than just 2mb blocks, but broad concepts need to be taken into account. It calls for a fresh morning mind I had. I had felt a little hazy on the subject until this morning. I think the debate is a challenge worth detailed discussion.
The heart of the debate is what you believe is the main purpose of the bitcoin blockchain. To me after allowing for transaction to occur in a decentralised way, providing transparent transaction information is its main purpose. This I think is an antidote to the problems of the 2008 financial crisis.
Transparency and publicly useful information sets bitcoin apart from the more anonymous altcoins (like Dash or Monero, some people would gladly drop public information for privacy). The bitcoin blockchain allows the public to track and analyse the flow of value in the world in real time in a way that was impossible in the past.
The problem now is that if someone wants to buy ice cream from the store and have the transaction be on the blockshain in ten minutes then they would need to pay a fee equivalent to 50c. Not really practical and not good for adoption, especially in the poorest countries that need bitcoin the most.
Segregated Witness, a technical bitcoin upgrade, is set to help with this by more than doubling the capacity of the bitcoin network and therefore reducing the amount competition in the elective fee market. But as "SegWit" comes in it also allows for sidechains and the lightning network. this is no small change, they effectively allow for infinite transactions. Though the block size easily becomes the focus, It is actually the auxiliary applications that are most significant and that may come at a higher cost. there are risks here to decentralisation, transparency and quality of information.
Sidechains can be centralised (owned by a company) which is very un bitcoin like. Though they might be seen as a poor substitute they do offer a good medium ground for people transitioning from banks. They are likely to have a real time record of transactions that is easily compatible with current block chain analysis software. Corporate governance lays a veil in front of transparency and allow government involvement. Side chains are also not required to publish their transactions. This means information on some ice cream transactions can be lost. Sidechains mirror the altcoin function and in my opinion erodes bitcoins point of difference.
The lightning network is in a way similar to sidechains in that it makes transactions off chain near unlimited, but it is different because it is not centralised. It does however potentially impact on transparency by adding a layer of complexity to the information that can be extracted from the blockchain. This is because transactions use smart contracts secured by the blockchain and are not accounted for in the standard transaction format. Lightning network, i think on the whole is a better system, as far as sticking to the original principles of bitcoin as digital cash, but it could compromise bitcoins point of difference as a transparent record as compared with more private crypto currencies.
Does bitcoin need all of its transactions to show up on the block chain? Many would argue that this currently doesn't happen anyway. Do we need a permanent publicly traceable record of transactions less than $5 in value? I argue that we can split transactions into multiple types and get better information, better privacy and better transparency all at once.
Already user are able to divide and manipulate transactions into larger and smaller parts on the blockchain. They may want to do this to hide the true purpose of the transaction ie: illegal stuff. At the moment this is expensive. These transactions will move to specific sidechains and networks because of the costs and this somewhat false coin mixing data will no longer muddle blockchain data. Transaction requiring low levels of trust will also move off of the blockchain, for example when people need to move funds from one personal wallet to another. the cup of coffee purchases will also begin to make more sense on the blockchain because they can all just be aggregated when merchants sell bitcoin. At present it is possible that merchant payments show up twice on the blockchain, as the item is purchased and again as the coins are sold. The better data differentiation and aggregation within bitcoin may actually give us a clearer view of what is going on in the bitcoin economy.
Big data is a complex issue. It may be that the NSA's "collect it all and get no distortion" philosophy is not ideal when looking specifically at financial data. A compromise may be needed to preserve decentralisation, transparency and maintain useful information on the blockchain. In a world where bitcoins transactions are ever increasing and altcoins are fast on its tail, something needs to be done. Bitcoin will become more complex but I think analytical systems will be able to handle it.
The heart of the debate is what you believe is the main purpose of the bitcoin blockchain. To me after allowing for transaction to occur in a decentralised way, providing transparent transaction information is its main purpose. This I think is an antidote to the problems of the 2008 financial crisis.
Transparency and publicly useful information sets bitcoin apart from the more anonymous altcoins (like Dash or Monero, some people would gladly drop public information for privacy). The bitcoin blockchain allows the public to track and analyse the flow of value in the world in real time in a way that was impossible in the past.
The problem now is that if someone wants to buy ice cream from the store and have the transaction be on the blockshain in ten minutes then they would need to pay a fee equivalent to 50c. Not really practical and not good for adoption, especially in the poorest countries that need bitcoin the most.
Segregated Witness, a technical bitcoin upgrade, is set to help with this by more than doubling the capacity of the bitcoin network and therefore reducing the amount competition in the elective fee market. But as "SegWit" comes in it also allows for sidechains and the lightning network. this is no small change, they effectively allow for infinite transactions. Though the block size easily becomes the focus, It is actually the auxiliary applications that are most significant and that may come at a higher cost. there are risks here to decentralisation, transparency and quality of information.
Sidechains can be centralised (owned by a company) which is very un bitcoin like. Though they might be seen as a poor substitute they do offer a good medium ground for people transitioning from banks. They are likely to have a real time record of transactions that is easily compatible with current block chain analysis software. Corporate governance lays a veil in front of transparency and allow government involvement. Side chains are also not required to publish their transactions. This means information on some ice cream transactions can be lost. Sidechains mirror the altcoin function and in my opinion erodes bitcoins point of difference.
The lightning network is in a way similar to sidechains in that it makes transactions off chain near unlimited, but it is different because it is not centralised. It does however potentially impact on transparency by adding a layer of complexity to the information that can be extracted from the blockchain. This is because transactions use smart contracts secured by the blockchain and are not accounted for in the standard transaction format. Lightning network, i think on the whole is a better system, as far as sticking to the original principles of bitcoin as digital cash, but it could compromise bitcoins point of difference as a transparent record as compared with more private crypto currencies.
Does bitcoin need all of its transactions to show up on the block chain? Many would argue that this currently doesn't happen anyway. Do we need a permanent publicly traceable record of transactions less than $5 in value? I argue that we can split transactions into multiple types and get better information, better privacy and better transparency all at once.
Already user are able to divide and manipulate transactions into larger and smaller parts on the blockchain. They may want to do this to hide the true purpose of the transaction ie: illegal stuff. At the moment this is expensive. These transactions will move to specific sidechains and networks because of the costs and this somewhat false coin mixing data will no longer muddle blockchain data. Transaction requiring low levels of trust will also move off of the blockchain, for example when people need to move funds from one personal wallet to another. the cup of coffee purchases will also begin to make more sense on the blockchain because they can all just be aggregated when merchants sell bitcoin. At present it is possible that merchant payments show up twice on the blockchain, as the item is purchased and again as the coins are sold. The better data differentiation and aggregation within bitcoin may actually give us a clearer view of what is going on in the bitcoin economy.
Big data is a complex issue. It may be that the NSA's "collect it all and get no distortion" philosophy is not ideal when looking specifically at financial data. A compromise may be needed to preserve decentralisation, transparency and maintain useful information on the blockchain. In a world where bitcoins transactions are ever increasing and altcoins are fast on its tail, something needs to be done. Bitcoin will become more complex but I think analytical systems will be able to handle it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)