Re: Just off the wire

My thoughts on crypto, get down to the mining - energy vortex it seems to create, alongside the question of whether it's more about a ledger ('knowledge') or a dollar value, as a primary instrument.  If mining becomes entirely decentralised, then the tech appears to become more useful, yet regardless there is an energy cost directly associated to the technology.  

Like a game, to graphics card rendering = watt's  

Low Tx rate appeared to be a problem, Melvin seemingly fixed that.

Too many fundamental questions about crypto to understand how to standardise IMHO.

Even still, big crypto businesses are still having legal problems...  

Doesn't seem evolved sufficiently yet.  Really interesting space, but more work needed...

IMHO.

Tim.h.

Sent from my iPad

> On 3 Nov 2014, at 1:12 am, Ricardo Varela <phobeo@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> hi,
> 
> I reckon the assumptions below are a bit misguided:
> 
> - you only have one currency as long as you only take into account Bitcoin and not Dogecoin, Ripple, Litecoin and the rest. The moment you want to establish exchanges among currencies (whether crypto or fiat) there will be fragmentation and exchange trading again. This is like saying "we should all use US dollars and then there will be no fragmentation" - interesting but not realistic
> 
> - the blockchain is no guarantee of globalization nor lack of manipulation. As a matter of fact the known issue of delegated control of blockchain (the 51% attack) has already been plausible more than once since the creation of Bitcoin (eg: http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/184427-one-bitcoin-group-now-controls-51-of-total-mining-power-threatening-entire-currencys-safety)
> 
> As a general note: what I'm seeing crypto-currency companies generally lack of is a valid defensible point that shows what difference they bring over "imagine we all used just dollars and we all just operated inside the VISA network". As of now, the VISA network will win on at least one of the above (no 51% problem) - so better to focus on other competitive points, no?
> 
> With this I don't mean this approach shouldn't be tested. I reckon there should be multiple "wallets" being able to be invoked from the browser, including cryptocurrency-based ones. What I'm saying is that one has to be realistic about what is and isn't achieved by each of the approaches.
> 
> Saludos!
> 
> 
>> On Sat, Nov 1, 2014 at 9:49 AM, Rene Bartsch <ml@bartschnet.de> wrote:
>> Am 2014-11-01 01:25, schrieb Pindar Wong:
>>> http://www.coindesk.com/wc3s-web-payments-redesign-bypass-bitcoin/ [1]
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Links:
>>> ------
>>> [1] http://www.coindesk.com/wc3s-web-payments-redesign-bypass-bitcoin/
>> 
>> 
>> Current payment systems have 4 drawbacks:
>> 
>> - Fragmentation of currencies (USD, EUR, ...)
>> - Fragmentation of payment providers (PayPal, Mastercard, VISA, local banks, ...) with different concepts and data sets
>> - Manipulation of accounts
>> - Only trustee accounts
>> 
>> The complexity of (currencies x payment providers = oo) renders existing payment systems unusable in a global network. I don't see a chance to pack all that currencies and payment providers with different systems into one API/GUI. It doesn't solve the manipulation of accounts, either.
>> 
>> A Bitcoin wallet integrated into browsers on the other hand solves all three problems:
>> 
>> 1. Users buy Bitcoins and transfer them to their browser wallet -> only one currency
>> 2. Blockchain -> ONE global payment system ANYONE can join
>> 3. Blockchain -> no manipulation of accounts/malicious trustees
>> 
>> Considering the "ambitious" interest group roadmap I suggest partnering up with Mozilla to integrate a Bitcoin wallet into Firefox and show the W3C what's technically possible.
>> 
>> -- 
>> Best regards,
>> 
>> Rene "Renne" Bartsch, B. Sc. Informatics
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Ricardo Varela -  http://twitter.com/phobeo
> "Though this be madness, yet there's method in 't"