LOUNGE all new asksnapzu ideasforsnapzu newtribes interesting pics videos funny technology science technews gaming health history worldnews business web research entertainment food living internet socialmedia mobile space sports photography nature animals movies culture travel television finance music celebrities gadgets environment usa crime politics law money justice psychology security cars wtf art google books lifetips bigbrother women apple kids recipes whoa military privacy education facebook medicine computing wildlife design war drugs middleeast diet toplists economy fail violence humor africa microsoft parenting dogs canada neuroscience architecture religion advertising infographics sex journalism disaster software aviation relationships energy booze life japan ukraine newmovies nsa cannabis name Name of the tribe humanrights nasa cute weather gifs discoveries cops futurism football earth dataviz pets guns entrepreneurship fitness android extremeweather fashion insects india northamerica
+66 68 2
Published 3 years ago with 9 Comments

Join the Discussion

  • Auto Tier
  • All
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
Post Comment
  • CaptnIgnit
    +4

    Most stories I've read about bitcoin tend to focus on the sensational, boom or bust aspect of cryptocurrencies. It's nice to see an article address that its the underlying tech that is really the important thing. Having a distributed system of trust that is based on mathematical principals is crazy powerful. I'm very eager to see what becomes of that tech in its 4th and 5th big iterations.

    • Wckdjugallo
      +2

      As a person who hasn't really used any cryptocurrency and has only done enough research into it to know how it basically works I am interested to know what is the next big iteration that is on the horizon? I am just curious as to how you would expand on this past what bitcoin and other cryptocurriencies already do.

      • TenNineteenOne
        +2

        I'm pretty sure (though it's just speculation), that Bitcoin itself would just evolve. It is an open-source, ongoing project after all. The main reason though is that a totally viable and healthy blockchain network already exists: the bitcoin network. Any major changes or "new features" would do better to just be incorporated into the main protocol vs building another network. The entire point of a blockchain network is distribution; if you want sole control of it, you'd just run it off a server rather than P2P in a network you can't mess with.

        • CaptnIgnit
          +2

          I was thinking more along the lines of adapting the tech to things you wouldn't immediately think of. Using the idea of distributed trust to create a lightweight escrow service for example. Bitcoin is the pioneer of the tech, but its uses go beyond a currency format.

          • TenNineteenOne
            +2

            Indeed they do. You can encode information in the blockchain already, and hopefully it would scale up with increased use. One of the uses that is more immediately feasible is maintaining a deed registry on the blockchain, which would be pretty easy. But that's part of the evolution.

            We're seeing Bitcoin/blockchain tech in it's absolute infancy. It could die, sure, but if it doesn't it could grow into something we couldn't imagine.

      • Lorkhan
        0

        Please visit http://www.buttcoinfoundation.org/ for all your future bitcoin related information needs.

  • Nerdeiro
    +4

    That said, Palychata's "redundant" prediction is a worst case scenario. He believes it's more likely that stock broking firms will adopt the blockchain technology to trade among themselves, rather than offer it directly to consumers.

    And even if a startup or coder builds a blockchain for trading shares and opens it directly to the public, Palychata thinks the security issues around keeping private keys — the access codes used to get digital assets traded on the blockchain — means current firms could develop a new role as the guardians of these keys.

    These two paragraphs are the most important in the whole article. The ability to trade financial assets directly have existed for a long time, still people rely on brokers for the added layer of security and legal protection. Brokers also help avoid some of the complexities of the financial market.

    Technology itself is an example of this. Networked computer have the ability to trade information directly between each other, butbmost people still rely on "data brokers" such as Gmail, Dropbox and others. Why ? because they simplify the process and add a sense of security.

    Palychata is right on the money here. Banks and brokers will continue to exist, only their tools that will change to increase the efficiency of the process.

    • NotWearingPants
      +2

      It needs to be easy enough to use that my grandmother can understand it. Worst case scenario isn't possible until that happens. When someone comes out with a cryptocurrency backed credit card system that granny can just swipe at the grocery store and either easily reload, or attach it to an existing account, it will likely still be the banks behind it.

  • sea
    +1

    Forgive me for being ignorant, but why can't these professions just adapt? Less computer savvy people will want others to bridge the gap for them, and banks can use their existing structure but just with BitCoin instead?

Here are some other snaps you may like...