Edit: I think some of the problem is I'm talking to n00bs
963 karma · joined November 11, 2016
Edit: I think some of the problem is I'm talking to n00bs
Edit (throttled):
bcash is bitcoin cash. 'bcash' is used to discredit it as 'bitcoin'. I like it b/c it's funny.
China coin: https://twitter.com/zaoyang/status/897111083588231173
Takes a high degree of empathy to understand something like that, though.
Edit: Anything else to say, or is that your contribution?
Edit2: If you having nothing useful to say, you should probably keep your mouth shut (& probably sit in the corner).
It's like the use of the term 'bcash' to discredit Bitcoin Cash.
If you -- not being stupid -- don't get it, it's probably not worth my time explaining it again.
Edit: it's past 1 here. Need to sleep. Sorry for the short reply. You should check out Monero. A look at what the privacy has to offer.
If you call censorship resistance a 'fine line', I agree.
I explained why I made the distinction. You should probably learn to read a more carefully before making statements about all knowing this & that. Or fine lines.
What do you think the point of crypto is? Make me look silly, bro.
Edit: You see the information I've talked about? I created that. So if you've got more, I'd be impressed.
Edit2: If you've got any thoughts on the blockchain as a data-commons for AI, I'm all ears.
Edit3: Any thoughts on the future of the decentralised web? Tangles for the IoT? How evolution relates to hard forks? Anything like that? Or just some dictionary definitions?
As it's private it could get banned -- which could set in back in the short-term. In the long-term, I think it's going to be money (or something like it). It could be a rocky ride!
Edit: A rocky ride with consequences (It's not a fairground ride). I want to point that out.
Edit2: You could sell your investment, obviously. I talking about if you're in for the duration.
I believe that's correct. Is the fund investing in non-crypto assets? 'Digital' implies the category 'digital' rather than 'crypto'. It's a subtle difference, but important for when government/gov agencies frame the tech.
My 'Edit2' of the root comment is incorrect.
> Also, Paypal is not a currency at all, it's just a bank and payments provider.
I believe PayPal is seen as having an electronic currency:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_currency#Centralized_s...
Edit: I'll amend further. The headline is definitionally correct. It's not as precise as I would like since it doesn't convey exactly what the fund is investing in. I think being precise in this matter is important b/c the word use is used to frame the tech as yet-another-digital-thing vs a censorship resistance technology (allowing privacy in an age of increased surveillance & free speech where centralised companies have become the censors). The word 'crypto' has a certain connotation -- which is why I think the SEC won't use it. Or other gov agencies refer to it as 'so-called' crypto currency.
It's also why Coinbase says 'digital currency', I think. There are ppl who try & force the matter when they're being interviewed. Well, I'm forcing the matter back.
---
Edit2 (reply to icebraining):
icebraining, I'm being throttled. Here's my reply,
> A random line in Wikipedia does not make for good evidence about how something is seen.
At least I supplied evidence, vs your naked claim.
> Bloomberg is writing for a general business audience, using a more generic term is normal
Good journalists use 'crypto'. Here's an example from Forbes (general business audience?),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/08/10/coinbase-b...
> doesn't imply anything.
I think it does. I've explained above in an edit. You seem to be making a lot of statements without backing anything up with reason.
Edit: & it makes a difference b/c one implies government control & the other control by the individual. Individual freedom. Privacy. Saftey from persecution. Allowing freedom of speech -- without the risk of being defunded by the government.
Edit2: Thank you for your comment.
For any given use case I believe the solution could be done more efficiently with traditional tech. What traditional tech doesn't do is provide resistance to censorship. Governments can take them down. Currencies, social networks, whatever. The raison d'être of crypto is to provide this resilience. That's what the extra resources go to. Crypto is valuable because it's a more resilience-whatever. E.g., Bitcoin is a more resilient money (Monero is better b/c it's private). Assets which can be taken have less value. Platforms which require permission have less innovation. That's the quick answer.
[0] https://twitter.com/aridavidpaul?lang=en
Edit:
Here are 15 more hedge funds for the klutz. Please old media: keep up! Would quite like NEWs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurashin/2017/07/12/crypto-boo...
Edit2: dpflan, I think I'm being throttled b/c of my VPN. Here's how I see it;
Personally, I think bitcoins will still increase, but the bet is more symmetrical. There are other crypto assets which are asymmetrical bets (lose 1x, gain 100x). I focus on the latter.
Oh, no he seems to be buying crypto assets; which have value because they're decentralised. Silly me. I was confused by the author being confused.
Edit: if you're downvoting me for this comment then you don't know what you're talking about. Happy to debate!
Edit2: seriously, there's a distinction to be made. One is a censorship resist asset (which is why the trade-off of greater resources is made) & the other isn't.
Edit3: explain to me why that isn't true & I'll change my position!
[0] https://ipfs.io/
> Are there any concrete uses of a blockchain that have clear advantages than to using a standard database other than cryptocurrencies?
Seems you're refuting something no one said, as far as I can tell.
Edit:
> Digital identity is a cryptographic thing and a distributed thing
How is it distributed? I assumed it was some company's servers -- maybe in multiple data centres around the world. But nothing like 24k nodes (& possibly more in the future).
---
Edit (reply to your edit):
I think the claim is that the identity system will be more resilient, not that it will be easier to implement. Censorship resistance.
I'd imagine it'll be harder to implement & cost more. A trade-off.
Which is along the lines of what I originally asked,
> Is Keybase resilient against the country's government in which it resides?
You said that gpg was. But didn't mention the computers. I asked about the servers & the ppl. (We didn't talk about the team).
The need wasn't specified. I'm presuming it's censorship resistance. Governments can't meddle with identities. Wipe someone off the face of the earth.
[0] https://science.tokenhub.com/2017/08/03/startup-incubator-sc...
Edit: stephengillie, can't currently use reply. Think I'm being throttled b/c of my VPN.
I guess Bing is your friend here! I've not been keeping an eye out for that particular type of thing (soz).
What do you think will happen wrt token sales & US regulation, in the near term?
& who can say for sure if what was written in Hatching Twitter is correct?
Everyone on HN is SO sceptical of everything, & then as soon as something negative is written about a VC you jump on them like a pack of hyenas.