British Company Adds the Word 'Blockchain' to Its Name, Sees Its Shares Surge 394% (bloomberg.com)

On-Line PLC, a British provider of stock market data, today saw its shares climb nearly 400% after changing its name to On-Line Blockchain PLC. From a report: "Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are a new and exciting area we have been working on for some time," the Essex-based company said in a statement on Thursday. "We feel the time is right to re-name the company to reflect these developments, where we believe the future growth will be in our sector." The shares pared gains after the company published a follow-up release on Friday, cautioning investors that the development of its blockchain product is still at an early stage. Still, the 238 percent rise as of 2:36 p.m. in London leaves the company's market value of 4.4 million pounds ($5.8 million) at its highest since 2005.

Comments

Everybody WANTS SOME!

[Anonymous Coward]

I want some TOO!

Know nothings.

Wow.

[Anonymous Coward]

There are a lot more morons buying stock than I thought.

Then again, people still games before they are actually on the shelf or even properly reviewed, so I shouldn't be surprised.

Tip for job hunters

[Anonymous Coward]

Have your name legally changed. First name Block, last name Chain. Middle initial F if you're really adventurous.

Re:Tip for job hunters

[blindseer]

I think you have that backwards. Most legal documents have last name first, which is why I changed my name to Truck Thunders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Holy Vapor, Batman

[glomph]

Just when you think we've reached Peak Buzzword Hype, somebody takes it up to Twelve.

Re:Holy Vapor, Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

At this point in my life I'm seriously considering just starting businesses for the VC capital, it sounds like a better career plan than actually working & producing shit

Re:Holy Vapor, Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when you think we've reached Peak Buzzword Hype, somebody takes it up to Twelve.

I learned something similar. I learned that if you are going to play with scat you should have a supply of antibiotics on hand. This is the part they didn't show on Two Girls One Cup.

Re:Holy Vapor, Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you white, good looking, and born into a family of good stock (notable social connections)? If so, the job is literally made for you.

Re:Holy Vapor, Batman

[Anonymous Coward]

Just when you think we've reached Peak Buzzword Hype, somebody takes it up to Twelve.

I'm waiting for "Blockchain Fried Chicken"

Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[rsilvergun]

in the butt. The folks in the elite class making stuff like this happen aren't very bright, they're just very rich. We keep letting them run the economy all by themselves they're gonna run us over a cliff. I'm not saying we go full commie, but there's a balance and we sure as hell tipped it if crap like this can happen.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[Anonymous Coward]

So let's let a bunch of criminal sociopaths run the country because they've been able to skirt the laws they've paid congress to write so that they can make fortunes off of products and services that have killed hundreds of thousands of people, and those they didn't kill, they ran into the ground so they cannot look the rich people in the eye..

Because that is a much better idea... NOT!!!

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[sjames]

If adding buzzword compliance to a name causes a 394% jump, it's not 'some'. Honestly, if you want to picture the stock market, imagine a coop filled with 1000 chickens. Now yell BOO!

The simple fact is that money attracts money. If you have the typical person's tiny pile, it will be sucked into someone else's pile. If you get a small loan of a million dollars from your dad after he pays a doctor to say you have draft-disqualifying bone spurs, you'r pile will suck money in from those smaller piles faster than the bigger piles out there suck it back out..

When your pile gets big enough, you just yell DO-OVER when things go bad and it will actually happen!

Transmission goes out and you can't go to work and you're $100 short to get the car back, meh. Self-induced real estate and fraudulent certificates bubble pops and crimps the hookers and blow fund, OMG BAILOUT!!! Cops know NOTHINK!

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[blindseer]

First, it's "nip it in the bud", not "butt".

Second, why would you complain about the wealthy not being so bright? If they are not bright enough to hold on to their wealth then it's a self correcting problem, they'll invest in stupid shit and soon not be wealthy any more. Those that are bright enough to hold on to their wealth should be in charge of running the economy, as they would be good examples to follow for the rest.

Are you just jealous you didn't think of using this name for your new company?

Third, wealth inequality is a necessary side effect of a growing economy. The money cannot spread out instantaneously to everyone. If I make a better mousetrap, and people are seeing their clothes, houses, and children eaten by mice then they are going to beat a path to my door to give me what money they have that wasn't eaten by the mice to buy my new mousetraps. Once they have a mousetrap, and they can keep the wealth they have from not being eaten by vermin, they then will soon also gain in wealth. Trade doesn't mean one person gets wealthy at the cost of another person's wealth. Trade means both parties are wealthier because no one would willingly trade down, everyone trades up. After I made that pile of money from selling mousetraps then I have some cash to buy some of the excess food, clothing, and labor, that was saved from the mousetraps killing off the vermin. I might, after investing wisely in mousetraps, might later choose less wisely by investing in block chains and lose my wealth. The people at the top changes daily. Those changes reflect wise and poor investments, as well as just plain luck.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[computational super]

You are brilliant.

You joke, but he actually came pretty close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination last year.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[werepants]

Second, why would you complain about the wealthy not being so bright? If they are not bright enough to hold on to their wealth then it's a self correcting problem, they'll invest in stupid shit and soon not be wealthy any more. Those that are bright enough to hold on to their wealth should be in charge of running the economy, as they would be good examples to follow for the rest.

What happens when the power of tremendous wealth becomes significant enough to outweigh human folly? To the extent that a single, corrupt businessman can get $1M from his daddy, mismanage the shit out of every business he touched, screw over contractors left and right, and still manage to come out fabulously wealthy? There's a point at which the inertia of wealth renders you too big to fail - even Bill Gates is now earning far more due to the sheer size of his wealth than his productive activities. The whole thing just turns into a "who got here first" contest.

Third, wealth inequality is a necessary side effect of a growing economy. The money cannot spread out instantaneously to everyone.

True, but not all wealth inequality is the same. A moderate level of inequality is inherent to a functional economy and sometimes a consequence of economic growth - but at extreme levels, it causes unhappiness, social unrest, and poverty. If it is allowed to get to extreme levels, it can cause instability in the system, it can cause a de facto caste system, and in the extreme cases lead to bloody revolutions.

There are lots of indications that wealth inequality in the U.S. has been at overly high levels for a while, and is rapidly headed towards seriously problematic territory. You don't have to be a guillotine enthusiast to see the value in reigning things in a bit.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[blindseer]

A moderate level of inequality is inherent to a functional economy and sometimes a consequence of economic growth - but at extreme levels, it causes unhappiness, social unrest, and poverty.

Jealousy, greed, and envy cause unhappiness and social unrest. The wealth disparity alone does not cause this. Also, how does wealth inequality breed poverty? It might bring a greater awareness of poverty. It might make poverty seem somehow worse by comparison, but that's just an aspect of being jealous of another person fortune.

You admit that inequality in wealth is inherent in a functioning economy. Good, we agree on something. Is it possible that a moderate inequality means a moderate economic growth and extreme inequality means extreme economic growth? If not then why not?

Here's just a part of the problem I see with this "raise taxes on the top 1%" idiocy, there will always be a top 1%. That's just a mathematical reality. If we tax them too much then they just leave. The USA has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world and people are just now figuring out that these taxes are driving people out. Corporate taxes don't have to be zero, but they should be low enough that it doesn't drive business away. I'd also help if the taxes have some relationship to the protections the country provides rather than the greed and envy of the voting public.

Bernie Sanders liked to complain about the top 10% of people making "too much" money, then he found out that those 10% make a large part of his voting base. He changed his tune to the "top 1%" which brought some people back until people started pointing out that Sanders himself was a member of this 1%. When people asked if he was going to pay more taxes then it became "the top 1/10th of a percent" being a problem. Well, these people have a lot of money and they don't need to live in the USA. I expect them to scatter to greener pastures and Bernie will have to find new people to be the scapegoats for creating unhappiness and social unrest.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[werepants]

Jealousy, greed, and envy cause unhappiness and social unrest.

Ah, perfect, then we just need to engineer humans so they can no longer feel these emotions! A claim like that is wilfully ignoring causes, and suggests that revolutions happen because a sudden outbreak of greed sweeps a nation - you can believe that if you want, but the rest of us would like to look at the real world and figure out root cause. In international studies, there is a strong correlation between economic inequality and unhappiness, and between equality and stability. Provide evidence to justify your claims rather than just spouting feel-good folk wisdom.

Is it possible that a moderate inequality means a moderate economic growth and extreme inequality means extreme economic growth?

Yes, but only if it is temporary. In an effective economy, money is changing hands rapidly. The reason inequality is unavoidable is because if you have money completely equally distributed across the population, but then 4/5 quintiles double their wealth, inequality has increased but the nation as a whole is much better off. But you need to look at where the inequality is coming from - and all the evidence suggests that the middle class and lower class haven't gotten any wealthier for the last couple decades, in some cases are getting poorer, yet the people at the top are doing the best they've ever done in history. The system is siphoning money straight to the top, and it isn't working for the other 80-90% of the nation.

Here's just a part of the problem I see with this "raise taxes on the top 1%" idiocy, there will always be a top 1%.

So? What's the objection? The purpose isn't to get rid of the 1%. The point is to tax the people who can afford the tax, and give a break to the people at the bottom so that they can see some wage growth as well. I can afford the tax - I'm not rich, but I do have disposable income. It makes a hell of a lot more sense to tax that disposable income than it does to tax the lower class, when that means they will struggle to make a car payment, house payment, buy food, etc.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[blindseer]

Ah, perfect, then we just need to engineer humans so they can no longer feel these emotions!

No, we don't need to "engineer" anything. We need people educated in how a republic operates, and some basics of economics based on reality and not "feels". I blame the public school systems for failing on that.

The purpose isn't to get rid of the 1%. The point is to tax the people who can afford the tax, and give a break to the people at the bottom so that they can see some wage growth as well. I can afford the tax - I'm not rich, but I do have disposable income.

I thought the point of taxes were to raise funds for providing services like police, courts, military, roads, bridges, and so on. I believe these powers were spelled out explicitly in the US Constitution. Show me the part where it says the government is supposed to minimize wealth inequity, I looked and I couldn't find it.

I may be mistaken but I recall Obama or some other prominent Democrat, perhaps several, had the backwards tax policy they were promoting being pointed out to them. History has proven that lowered tax rates can improve revenue. But Democrats didn't care about maximizing revenue, they cared about sticking the wealthy with more and more taxes. We see this now. A proposal for a reduced tax rate is getting resistance from the Democrats because it reduces taxes for the wealthy. Well, if we are going to see taxes reduced for the working poor then the wealthy are going to see some reduction as well, that's just how our taxes work.

That's where you seem to be, we can never reduce the tax rate for anyone because that means the wealthy will see a reduction too. If you think the people at the bottom need a tax break then that means the wealthy are going to see a reduction in taxes too, because the wealthy don't live in a different world, they live in the same world as everyone else. Lowering taxes on everyone will mean a small number of wealthy people getting even more wealth, but it also means a lot of poor people get to keep their money too.

It makes a hell of a lot more sense to tax that disposable income than it does to tax the lower class, when that means they will struggle to make a car payment, house payment, buy food, etc.

You can pick only so much from the money tree every year before you risk killing it. If you want that wealthy portion of the population to pay their "fair share" next year then this year should not have crushing taxes that drive them to poverty, drive them out of the country, or drive them to an early retirement. I believe that we don't have a tax problem, we have a spending problem.

Re:Another good reason to nip wealth inequality

[werepants]

No, we don't need to "engineer" anything. We need people educated in how a republic operates, and some basics of economics based on reality and not "feels". I blame the public school systems for failing on that.

You are saying that social unrest and unhappiness is an education problem? What kind of "education" would convince people to be happy with a society they feel is unjust? Sounds very "War is peace, Ignorance is strength, Freedom is slavery" to me. Social unrest happens because of inequality - giving people real equal opportunity is the solution.

I thought the point of taxes were to raise funds for providing services like police, courts, military, roads, bridges, and so on. I believe these powers were spelled out explicitly in the US Constitution. Show me the part where it says the government is supposed to minimize wealth inequity, I looked and I couldn't find it.

Providing for the general welfare covers it pretty well, regulation of interstate commerce also certainly applies to tax and monetary policy. But here's the thing - the use of the taxes is a tangential issue - because you aren't disputing that taxation is a legitimate practice of the federal government, are you? If not, then the question just becomes: what tax system best ensures liberty, prosperity, and the equal opportunity that's central to our idea of a meritocratic economy? Even supposing the tax was only funding the military, those questions would still pertain.

History has proven that lowered tax rates can improve revenue.

No, history hasn't proven that. You are talking about the Laffer curve, and although it can't be faulted as a theoretical construct, it doesn't mean Lower Tax Rate = More Revenue. It's just a mathematical function, and a fairly obvious one that comes from considering that revenue goes to zero at 0% tax rates or 100% tax rates, and follows a curve in between. Whether a tax increase will lead to a revenue increase depends on where you are at on the curve - only at very high tax rates will a percentage decrease cause an increase in revenue, and history has demonstrated that we generated the most revenue in the 50's, when the top marginal rate was 90%.

But Democrats didn't care about maximizing revenue, they cared about sticking the wealthy with more and more taxes.

You couldn't be more wrong. The deficit has almost unilaterally increased with Republican administrations and decreased with Democrats: http://thegreatrecession.info/...

The last Republican to decrease the deficit on average was Nixon. I use to be flummoxed by this, because the Republicans claim to be the fiscal conservatives, yet they slice revenue at every opportunity and increase spending (or keep it constant at best). This is actually a very deliberate strategy instituted in the 80's called "Starve the Beast", where you try to create a massive debt that will force the government to shrink. It's akin to quitting your job so that the smaller income will force you to get your budget in order.

If you want to generate revenue, you have to tax people that have money.

We see this now. A proposal for a reduced tax rate is getting resistance from the Democrats because it reduces taxes for the wealthy.

Not true. The reduced tax rate is problematic because it will increase the deficit and/or shift the burden to the middle and lower class, depending on which proposed version you are talking about. The issue isn't that it reduces tax on the wealthy - it's that it cuts taxes for the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.

That's where you seem to be, we can never reduce the tax rate for anyone because that means the wealthy will see a reduction too.

Factually false. It is trivial to reduce the taxes j

PT Barnum...

[Zorro]

Is smiling somewhere.

Re:PT Barnum...

[davide marney]

Hey, stop harshing on good 'ol P.T. His essay on The Art of Money-Getting; Or, Golden Rules for Making Money" is a classic. And no, it's not what you think. One of the soundest essays on business you will ever read, I promise.

Deja vu

[Spy Handler]

20 years ago I saw companies adding "e" in front of their name (or ".com" at the end of the name) and sit back and watch the hordes of morons shoving cash in their faces.

Re:Deja vu

[Anonymous Coward]

eOnLineBlockchainAI.co.uk.com should be worth registering.

Re:Deja vu

[slashrio]

And after the internet hype came the internet crash.

Re: Choose the right outfit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Boobs aren't big enough. This is the current series isn't selling well.

Re: Choose the right outfit.

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed, less polygons is better

Not a bubble

[WrongMonkey]

All the interest in Bitcoin is based on rational market forces.

Re:Not a bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Visit /r/bitcoin and have a laugh at what some of the people over there believe. Bitcoin is somehow at the center of some ancap/libertarian wet dream.

Re:Not a bubble

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep. Just like unfettered, unregulated capitalism is the best way to efficiently allocate resources. We're seeing examples of this all the time. I don't know how I ever doubted it.

At least in the last guilded age, the robber barons actually owned things that had value.

Finally that mystery step that comes before profit

[cdu13a]

Rename company something like the IoT Blockchain On Demand Deep Learning Virtual Assistant Augmented Reality Cloud Quantum Computing Company.

Just add "Blockchain" to your resume . . .

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . and demand a 394% salary increase from your manager!

The real gag here, is that I am actually working with Blockchain at the moment.

But no, if I ask my manager where my 394% salary increase is . . . well, the language he would use in his answer would not make it through the Slashdot posting filters.

Hey, y'all give it a try: http://hyperledger-fabric.read...

It could be worth 394% to you!

. . . and even more!

Or at least you can learn what Blockchain can't do, which these days is more important, since marketing folks are running around claiming that Blockchain can cure toenail fungus.

That missing step 2 has been found !

[UnknownSoldier]

1. Change name to include Blockchain
2. ???
3. Profit !

So apparently the missing step 2 has been found:

2. Wait for morons to over-value your stock

Blockchain Technology

[sexconker]

Anyone selling you on "blockchain technology" or a "blockchain product" is a useless piece of lying shit and should be shot in the teeth.

A blockchain is a digital ledger. That's literally all it fucking is.

If you want an encrypted, distributed, decentralized blockchain go copy Bitcoin. It's free and easy to do.
If you want all of that but want to tweak the speed, algorithm, difficulty, storage, etc. just roll your own coin. It's free and easy to do.
If you want to do stupid bullshit like have central control over your blockchain you can do that too. If you want to copy from someone, go copy any of the alt coins pegged to BTC. Or go copy any project/token from Ethereum.
If you want to outright scam people, just copy paste an "ICO".

Absolutely NONE of these companies are working on "blockchain technology" or a "blockchain product".

They're either:

A: Acting as a middleman to buy, sell, and transact in various crypto currencies.
B: Doing absolutely nothing but taking investor money and pissing it away.
C: Trying to fork, leverage, brand, and control a blockchain of their own. With that control aspect, they're essentially creating their own currency. The major financial institutions are absolutely poised and ready to do this. No one has made the first move because taking control of the money supply away from the feds is about the only thing that would get banksters thrown in jail.

Re: Choose the right outfit.

[sexconker]

Agreed, less polygons is better

Fewer polygons are better.
Having fewer polygons is better.

That missing step 2 has been found !: Slashdot.

[Anonymous Coward]

Slashdot Blockchain. Sit back and wait for the audience to roll in.

Re:Finally that mystery step that comes before pro

[zlives]

is there room for hyper-converged in there?

Re:Finally that mystery step that comes before pro

[Calydor]

All of the venture capitalists around the world just had a collective orgasm.

Well done.

Not a name change

[blindseer]

They are just using their full name. I used to just use my first and last names when introducing myself but I found that if I use my full name that the ladies find me more interesting.

Regards,
Austin Danger Powers

Sounds like a penny stock scam

[future assassin]

with suckers buying on forward looking statements while the CEO/insiders dump on the same day.

Welcome to the future

[werepants]

The only path forward is for each of us to transact in our own, personal cryptocurrency, issued at the age of majority. Social status will be quantified easily by exchange rate. We can sell the use of our bodies or minds to the highest bidder via ICO. Ooh - we could even create futures markets for promising youth, and the rich could obtain a controlling stake in a massive army of cryptoservants from the day they are born. It's a bold new future.

Re:Welcome to the future

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/4025200-the-unincorporated-man

Wait, what?

[thejeffwhite]

Counting the contradictions...

"Blockchain technology and cryptocurrencies are a new and exciting area we have been working on for some time. "
The shares pared gains after the company published a follow-up release on Friday, cautioning investors that the development of its blockchain product is still at an early stage.
"We feel the time is right to re-name the company to reflect these developments, where we believe the future growth will be in our sector."

It's new, but they've been at it a long time, like, before it was new. They have still produced nothing, and that makes it a great time to swell the hype. So give them your money!

Register a 5G bread factory

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a obvious stunt, a very very dumb one, this is proof that the financial sector is easily deceived and needs to be tamed; Specially since it appears like some owners think that economy is a game.

Slashdot coin

[Anonymous Coward]

If you post your Waves Platform Wallet I will send you 100 Slashdot coins.. Airdrop

happened with Linux too

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 90's I recall some companies would put Linux in their name to get a stock boost. Linux Gold Corp was one.

Shoeshine boys

[Quinn_Inuit]

So, are the shoeshine boys handing out stock tips yet?

Re:Shoeshine boys

[wyHunter]

How many times can it be 1929? Of course, it's more like 1937 right now.

Why do we allow large-scale gambling by morons?

[gweihir]

Because this is clearly what most of the stock-market is.