It actually worked well for the Roman *Republic* for nearly five centuries.
"A consul held the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic (509 to 27 BC), and ancient Romans considered the consulship the highest level of the cursus honorum (an ascending sequence of public offices to which politicians aspired).
Each year, the citizens of Rome elected two consuls to serve jointly for a one-year term. The consuls alternated in holding imperium each month,[citation needed] and a consul's imperium extended over Rome, Italy, and the provinces. However, after the establishment of the Empire (27 BC), the consuls became mere symbolic representatives of Rome's republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme authority." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, yes they do. There is literally nothing you can solve with blockchain that you can't already solve in a different way.
You are confusing technically feasible with done in practice. Sure the existing solutions could theoretically offer unfettered access to data but in practice that is not so much the case, and it is often a revokable situation. Plus the current solutions generally rely on an authoritative source. Whatever the authority says go. As opposed to the consensus of all the parties involved in supporting the network. So no, current solutions are not necessarily equivalent to blockchain and certainly are not operated in such an open and transparent way.
We are currently running a proof-of-concept test of an asset trading and tracking system,
How do you verify that the assets match the blockchain? What happens if an asset is destroyed?
Currently some coins are "destroyed" by transferring them to a special account.
Verification of a digital asset is something internal to the blockchain. Any created asset can be tracked from its creation to its current owner(s). Anything currently owned can be tracked back to its creation. Note that creation of an asset, like transfer of an asset, it a verified event at the time it occurred. If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
The realistic blockchain use is making reliable and accurate data available to any interested party, giving the latter unfettered read access to the data.
Think of cryptocurrency as merely a proof-of-concept. Note that the financial success of the cryptocurrency is irrelevant, what matters is whether the blockchain successfully managed and tracked the assets in question.
Also cryptocurrencies are not really currencies, there are assets. We are currently running a proof-of-concept test of an asset trading and tracking system, not a currency system. Substitute some other asset and you have other uses.
name one that a traditional database/ledger does not solve already?
Its not about database/ledger functionality existing. Its about anyone's unfettered access to the data and security of the data. Existing solutions don't necessarily provide either of these.
I've interviewed with a couple of these startups. Some of them are ICOs that made a ton of money ripping people off and now are vaguely trying to appear legitimate. Some of them are trying to be trading platforms for bit coin (or whatever). I'll be honest: I haven't seen any that felt remotely worth working for (worth being defined as: not a scam and will probably someday turn the equity into cash).
I'm involved in a startup that has been at a few entrepreneur/investor events. About half the angel level investors that spent time at our booth were eager to know if we could incorporate blockchain into our product/service. The vibe we got from some of these was that they wanted blockchain to be somehow incorporated regardless of how ill-fitting it would be. They wanted the buzzword that was all that rage at the time.
Its like the late Clinton-era internet bubble. Anything online/internet/web attracted investor interest. A lot of it was scammy and/or dumb. Yet there were some things that translated to the online world well and survived, despite the vast amounts questionable stuff that did not. Blockchain will likely follow a similar pattern.
Sure, millions of GPU miners, mining alt-coins and selling them for bitcoins, and the wiser ones then exchanging the bitcoins for their local fiat currency. Don't think of the handful of "enthusiasts" who built mining rigs. Think of many with a decent GPU in their PC who decided to let it mine when they were not otherwise using their PC. These people generated much bitcoin "usage". It was profitable until very recently and these people are bloating the cited stats.
And in another year, will be the fastest dying US job.
Virtual currencies like bitcoin are one thing. Blockchain technology is something else entirely and will likely be with us for a long time. Perhaps a car analogy.:-)
Bitcoin and blockchain and like the Ford Model T car and the internal combustion engine (ICE). The formers (bitcoin, Model T) are just users of the latters (blockchain, ICE), formers that are entirely replaceable, yet the replacements will continue using the latters as will different classes of users unrelated to the formers use the latters.
Will there be a dip in job offerings in a year, probably, there are way too many companies trying to inappropriately shoehorn "blockchain" into their new products under development. So many just want the buzzword of "blockchain" to be more attractive to investors (so they think). These fools will disappears, they will be responsible for a dip. However there are legitimate uses for blockchain beyond cryptocurrency and the field will not die off. Blockchain is a useful new technology.
An article about a single options trade? Really? Has slashdot become a trivia site?
I get the interest in cryptocurrency. The field of full of nerd related news and interesting tech, psychology and social impact. But this, its just: here's the biggest bet gone wrong. Trivia.
Let Darwin take care of it. In just a few hundred generations, we will be able to sense the arrival of a car.
A Darwinian force would include the lawsuits directed at "silent" car operators, owners and manufacturers. Or the fear of such lawsuits. So Darwinian forces are what is causing the low speed alert sounds to be included in cars. This alert sound increases the likelihood of economic survival in a litigious environment. Cars are adapting to this environment.
For that matter, there is nothing standing between us and cheap, long-lasting batteries other than some science and engineering? Or does it not work both ways?
It does work both ways. However in certain situations the energy density of liquid fuels is advantageous. There is no universal solution, only one tool better for a particular job. If the sourcing of these liquid fuels could get to at least carbon neutral then ICE, jets, etc will have their particular niche jobs.
I think it is only an issue at very low speeds. Zero to some single digit mph possibly. The material and maintenance of the road or parking lot being a factor too.
We probably only need external speakers producing sound at extremely low speeds. As speed increases the road noise (ex. tires on pavement) begins to mitigate the need for speaker produced noise.
Its due to scientific illiteracy on the political left. They can't separate high density liquid fuels and internal combustion from the current economical source of those fuels, petroleum. There is nothing standing between us and non-petroleum carbon neutral sources of these fuels other than some science and engineering.
And abundant at scale when all ICE passenger vehicles and commercial trucks are replaced with electric, all power plants renewable with battery backup, etc.
And sourced without any messy geopolitical issues.
You can get vroom vroom from speakers. Seriously, EVs will probably be required to make some noise as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists at some point. Especially at low speed, parking lots, crosswalks, etc.
Wouldn't the classic VW Beetle be a better example of a design with longevity, 60'ish years from about 1940 in Germany to about 2000 in Mexico?;-)
Personally I wouldn't go so far as to say they won't be updating a platform, rather they won't be designing a brand new platform. Certainly incremental improvements to the platform would be made if appropriate. And certainly cosmetic and/or luxury and/or tech based changes can be made to the body and passenger cabin. I doubt their cars will be unchanged year to year to year.
Plus we are talking a timescale of decades so gasoline/diesel produced from biological sources (ex algae) may make these fuels carbon neutral. Its a bit silly to think such high density fuels are inherently petroleum based, that is merely the most cost effective production route at the moment. Scientific and engineering advances may very well change that.
The fact remains that a person who started a magic the gathering trading exchange decided to switch to a bitcoin trading exchange and the bitcoin community viewed the magic the gather exchange experience as legitimate. And the original post I responded to was speaking of legitimacy for bitcoin sellers/exchanges. Mocking tobacco stores selling lottery tickets as being great financial experience, apparently unaware of the bitcoin community's low threshold for experience regarding exchanges. To this day exchanges exist that are somewhat "hobbyist" in nature. Shall we move on to btc-e to discuss other areas of a lower threshold for reputability that the bitcoin community accepts? Those new to bitcoin need to be aware of such things, that all exchanges are not considered equal, that many advocates have quite low thresholds for financial integrity.
Furthermore, your claim of "nothing to do" with magic the gathering is debunked, flat out false. Same person, magic experience considered legitimate experience, etc. That MtGox was later sold and became even larger under a different person does not change these facts.
MtGox has NOTHING to do with magic the gathering you stupid asshole!!!
From the wiki link you apparently ignored:
"Founding (2006-10)
In late 2006, programmer Jed McCaleb (eDonkey2000, Overnet1, Ripple, Stellar) thought of building a website for users of the Magic: The Gathering Online fantasy-based card game service, to let them trade "Magic: The Gathering Online" cards like stocks. In January 2007, he purchased the domain name mtgox.com, short for "Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange". Initially in beta release, sometime around late 2007, the service went live for approximately three months before McCaleb moved on to other projects, having decided it was not worth his time. He reused the domain name in 2009 to advertise his card game The Far Wilds.
In July 2010, McCaleb read about bitcoin on Slashdot, and decided that the bitcoin community needed an exchange for trading bitcoin and regular currencies. On July 18, Mt. Gox launched its exchange and price quoting service deploying it on the spare mtgox.com domain name."
Think about how much Bitcoin would rise again if even 10% of the people in most modern cities around the world bought and started using a few hundred $ worth.
How does one "use" bitcoin in daily life? In many national jurisdictions with those modern cities bitcoin is considered an asset. So when you buy a cup of coffee with bitcoins you have to note the price of those coins when you received them, note the current price at which you used them, calculate the gain or loss that was just realized and report that gain/loss to your tax authority when you file your tax return. Just as if you sold an asset such as stocks.
Of course buying that coffee was theoretical. Except when engaging in some sort of public stunt, a product or service purchased with bitcoin has to be one where it is OK to wait about an hour for the bitcoin transfer to verify.
Bitcoin is not a currency at this time. It is currently two things. (1) A highly speculative investment vehicle. (2) A method to transfer funds person to person. Note that in such bitcoin transfers neither party usually holds bitcoins for an appreciable amount of time, typically bitcoin is purchased with a real currency, the bitcoins transferred and verified, and the bitcoins immediately sold for a real currency (which may be different than the previous currency). Similarly merchants that engage in public stunts where they accept bitcoins for goods or services typically use a payment processor that immediately converts the bitcoins received to a real currency in some manner. There merchants usually do not hold bitcoins. Bitcoins are generally held only by the speculators.
"French Tobacco shops... selling cigarettes, newspapers, magazines, and lottery tickets."
Well, that's the stamp of financial legitimacy right there. Classy!
True, no where near the financial legitimacy as say a Magic the Gathering Trading Card Exchange that was handling 70% of all bitcoin transactions in 2014, before it noticed that 850,000 bitcoins were missing and shut down and filed for bankruptcy.
Slashdot Mirror
Rome did it for 500 years ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
It sounds hilarious.
It actually worked well for the Roman *Republic* for nearly five centuries.
"A consul held the highest elected political office of the Roman Republic (509 to 27 BC), and ancient Romans considered the consulship the highest level of the cursus honorum (an ascending sequence of public offices to which politicians aspired).
Each year, the citizens of Rome elected two consuls to serve jointly for a one-year term. The consuls alternated in holding imperium each month,[citation needed] and a consul's imperium extended over Rome, Italy, and the provinces. However, after the establishment of the Empire (27 BC), the consuls became mere symbolic representatives of Rome's republican heritage and held very little power and authority, with the Emperor acting as the supreme authority."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Yes, yes they do. There is literally nothing you can solve with blockchain that you can't already solve in a different way.
You are confusing technically feasible with done in practice. Sure the existing solutions could theoretically offer unfettered access to data but in practice that is not so much the case, and it is often a revokable situation. Plus the current solutions generally rely on an authoritative source. Whatever the authority says go. As opposed to the consensus of all the parties involved in supporting the network. So no, current solutions are not necessarily equivalent to blockchain and certainly are not operated in such an open and transparent way.
We are currently running a proof-of-concept test of an asset trading and tracking system,
How do you verify that the assets match the blockchain? What happens if an asset is destroyed?
Currently some coins are "destroyed" by transferring them to a special account.
Verification of a digital asset is something internal to the blockchain. Any created asset can be tracked from its creation to its current owner(s). Anything currently owned can be tracked back to its creation. Note that creation of an asset, like transfer of an asset, it a verified event at the time it occurred. If you are talking about real-world assets verifying a document like a ledger is no different whether that ledger is blockchain based or another other type of online ledger or database or a physical pen and paper ledger.
The realistic blockchain use is making reliable and accurate data available to any interested party, giving the latter unfettered read access to the data.
Think of cryptocurrency as merely a proof-of-concept. Note that the financial success of the cryptocurrency is irrelevant, what matters is whether the blockchain successfully managed and tracked the assets in question.
Also cryptocurrencies are not really currencies, there are assets. We are currently running a proof-of-concept test of an asset trading and tracking system, not a currency system. Substitute some other asset and you have other uses.
name one that a traditional database/ledger does not solve already?
Its not about database/ledger functionality existing. Its about anyone's unfettered access to the data and security of the data. Existing solutions don't necessarily provide either of these.
I've interviewed with a couple of these startups. Some of them are ICOs that made a ton of money ripping people off and now are vaguely trying to appear legitimate. Some of them are trying to be trading platforms for bit coin (or whatever). I'll be honest: I haven't seen any that felt remotely worth working for (worth being defined as: not a scam and will probably someday turn the equity into cash).
I'm involved in a startup that has been at a few entrepreneur/investor events. About half the angel level investors that spent time at our booth were eager to know if we could incorporate blockchain into our product/service. The vibe we got from some of these was that they wanted blockchain to be somehow incorporated regardless of how ill-fitting it would be. They wanted the buzzword that was all that rage at the time.
Its like the late Clinton-era internet bubble. Anything online/internet/web attracted investor interest. A lot of it was scammy and/or dumb. Yet there were some things that translated to the online world well and survived, despite the vast amounts questionable stuff that did not. Blockchain will likely follow a similar pattern.
Sure, millions of GPU miners, mining alt-coins and selling them for bitcoins, and the wiser ones then exchanging the bitcoins for their local fiat currency. Don't think of the handful of "enthusiasts" who built mining rigs. Think of many with a decent GPU in their PC who decided to let it mine when they were not otherwise using their PC. These people generated much bitcoin "usage". It was profitable until very recently and these people are bloating the cited stats.
And in another year, will be the fastest dying US job.
Virtual currencies like bitcoin are one thing. Blockchain technology is something else entirely and will likely be with us for a long time. Perhaps a car analogy. :-)
Bitcoin and blockchain and like the Ford Model T car and the internal combustion engine (ICE). The formers (bitcoin, Model T) are just users of the latters (blockchain, ICE), formers that are entirely replaceable, yet the replacements will continue using the latters as will different classes of users unrelated to the formers use the latters.
Will there be a dip in job offerings in a year, probably, there are way too many companies trying to inappropriately shoehorn "blockchain" into their new products under development. So many just want the buzzword of "blockchain" to be more attractive to investors (so they think). These fools will disappears, they will be responsible for a dip. However there are legitimate uses for blockchain beyond cryptocurrency and the field will not die off. Blockchain is a useful new technology.
An article about a single options trade? Really? Has slashdot become a trivia site?
I get the interest in cryptocurrency. The field of full of nerd related news and interesting tech, psychology and social impact. But this, its just: here's the biggest bet gone wrong. Trivia.
Let Darwin take care of it. In just a few hundred generations, we will be able to sense the arrival of a car.
A Darwinian force would include the lawsuits directed at "silent" car operators, owners and manufacturers. Or the fear of such lawsuits. So Darwinian forces are what is causing the low speed alert sounds to be included in cars. This alert sound increases the likelihood of economic survival in a litigious environment. Cars are adapting to this environment.
For that matter, there is nothing standing between us and cheap, long-lasting batteries other than some science and engineering? Or does it not work both ways?
It does work both ways. However in certain situations the energy density of liquid fuels is advantageous. There is no universal solution, only one tool better for a particular job. If the sourcing of these liquid fuels could get to at least carbon neutral then ICE, jets, etc will have their particular niche jobs.
I was envisioning the artificial noise at speeds half that or less. :-)
I think it is only an issue at very low speeds. Zero to some single digit mph possibly. The material and maintenance of the road or parking lot being a factor too.
We probably only need external speakers producing sound at extremely low speeds. As speed increases the road noise (ex. tires on pavement) begins to mitigate the need for speaker produced noise.
why is this push so rabid
Its due to scientific illiteracy on the political left. They can't separate high density liquid fuels and internal combustion from the current economical source of those fuels, petroleum. There is nothing standing between us and non-petroleum carbon neutral sources of these fuels other than some science and engineering.
$1/liter $4/gallon carbon neutral gasoline may be feasible:
https://reason.com/blog/2018/0...
LION - safe to mine, safe to use, safe to eat.
And abundant at scale when all ICE passenger vehicles and commercial trucks are replaced with electric, all power plants renewable with battery backup, etc.
And sourced without any messy geopolitical issues.
You can get vroom vroom from speakers. Seriously, EVs will probably be required to make some noise as a safety feature for pedestrians and cyclists at some point. Especially at low speed, parking lots, crosswalks, etc.
Wouldn't the classic VW Beetle be a better example of a design with longevity, 60'ish years from about 1940 in Germany to about 2000 in Mexico? ;-)
Personally I wouldn't go so far as to say they won't be updating a platform, rather they won't be designing a brand new platform. Certainly incremental improvements to the platform would be made if appropriate. And certainly cosmetic and/or luxury and/or tech based changes can be made to the body and passenger cabin. I doubt their cars will be unchanged year to year to year.
Plus we are talking a timescale of decades so gasoline/diesel produced from biological sources (ex algae) may make these fuels carbon neutral. Its a bit silly to think such high density fuels are inherently petroleum based, that is merely the most cost effective production route at the moment. Scientific and engineering advances may very well change that.
The fact remains that a person who started a magic the gathering trading exchange decided to switch to a bitcoin trading exchange and the bitcoin community viewed the magic the gather exchange experience as legitimate. And the original post I responded to was speaking of legitimacy for bitcoin sellers/exchanges. Mocking tobacco stores selling lottery tickets as being great financial experience, apparently unaware of the bitcoin community's low threshold for experience regarding exchanges. To this day exchanges exist that are somewhat "hobbyist" in nature. Shall we move on to btc-e to discuss other areas of a lower threshold for reputability that the bitcoin community accepts? Those new to bitcoin need to be aware of such things, that all exchanges are not considered equal, that many advocates have quite low thresholds for financial integrity.
Furthermore, your claim of "nothing to do" with magic the gathering is debunked, flat out false. Same person, magic experience considered legitimate experience, etc. That MtGox was later sold and became even larger under a different person does not change these facts.
MtGox has NOTHING to do with magic the gathering you stupid asshole!!!
From the wiki link you apparently ignored:
"Founding (2006-10)
In late 2006, programmer Jed McCaleb (eDonkey2000, Overnet1, Ripple, Stellar) thought of building a website for users of the Magic: The Gathering Online fantasy-based card game service, to let them trade "Magic: The Gathering Online" cards like stocks. In January 2007, he purchased the domain name mtgox.com, short for "Magic: The Gathering Online eXchange". Initially in beta release, sometime around late 2007, the service went live for approximately three months before McCaleb moved on to other projects, having decided it was not worth his time. He reused the domain name in 2009 to advertise his card game The Far Wilds.
In July 2010, McCaleb read about bitcoin on Slashdot, and decided that the bitcoin community needed an exchange for trading bitcoin and regular currencies. On July 18, Mt. Gox launched its exchange and price quoting service deploying it on the spare mtgox.com domain name."
Think about how much Bitcoin would rise again if even 10% of the people in most modern cities around the world bought and started using a few hundred $ worth.
How does one "use" bitcoin in daily life? In many national jurisdictions with those modern cities bitcoin is considered an asset. So when you buy a cup of coffee with bitcoins you have to note the price of those coins when you received them, note the current price at which you used them, calculate the gain or loss that was just realized and report that gain/loss to your tax authority when you file your tax return. Just as if you sold an asset such as stocks.
Of course buying that coffee was theoretical. Except when engaging in some sort of public stunt, a product or service purchased with bitcoin has to be one where it is OK to wait about an hour for the bitcoin transfer to verify.
Bitcoin is not a currency at this time. It is currently two things. (1) A highly speculative investment vehicle. (2) A method to transfer funds person to person. Note that in such bitcoin transfers neither party usually holds bitcoins for an appreciable amount of time, typically bitcoin is purchased with a real currency, the bitcoins transferred and verified, and the bitcoins immediately sold for a real currency (which may be different than the previous currency). Similarly merchants that engage in public stunts where they accept bitcoins for goods or services typically use a payment processor that immediately converts the bitcoins received to a real currency in some manner. There merchants usually do not hold bitcoins. Bitcoins are generally held only by the speculators.
"French Tobacco shops... selling cigarettes, newspapers, magazines, and lottery tickets."
Well, that's the stamp of financial legitimacy right there. Classy!
True, no where near the financial legitimacy as say a Magic the Gathering Trading Card Exchange that was handling 70% of all bitcoin transactions in 2014, before it noticed that 850,000 bitcoins were missing and shut down and filed for bankruptcy.
Seriously, I did not make that up.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The reason for the ACH delays is irrelevant, the fact remains that they exist.
No, ACH has significant longer delays / confirmation times for ordinary people, 72-hour, 24-hour.
Again, you confuse completely decentralized and decentralized *enough*. Not everyone needs the full data set, only *enough* people.