Christopher Wylie, the kid who blew the whistle on Cambridge Analytica, another actor in our movie.
They don't buy it from anyone. They buy it from the network. It's autonomous.
There are use cases for centralized cloud storage and for decentralized cloud storage.
I'm not going to doxx myself nor claim that I have 100% certainty, but the blanket statements you're tossing out have been thought through extensively in the academic literature, which is considerable.
With the cost involved with the loss of personal privacy, national risk, and corporate espionage, decentralized clouds may prove to offer something worth the extra margin, if there is one. Likely the management reduction costs alone may make it a cheaper solution all things considered. Regardless, the marginal cost on each individual's energy requirement will be minuscule compared to what it provides and large operators will only be able to run at a loss, which they would likely do in the beginning just to recoup some of the sunk cost in hardware. Hopefully, their coins, if they don't see, will grow in value. Over the long term, they will be disintermediated these networks except by parties that have no interest in data privacy. And unlike Bitcoin, while it won't be completely decentralized, it will be much more distributed so that anyone with a decent setup to offer memory to the network will be rewarded. That said, it isn't a requirement to use the network. Simply surfing the network is free.
"No man can serve two masters: for either he
will hate the one, and love the other; or else
he will hold to the one, and despise the other…"
I definitely noticed this too. With all that I know about the rest of the project and the people in it, I definitely tend to let this slide. Remember these symbols are good in their original meanings. It's the evil people that pervert them. Discerning between the two is our homework. Knowing the depth of thinking and the quality of ethical philosophy driving the project, I'd be pretty surprised if it was related. Moreover, I think the tilted triangle might even have been on purpose to avoid that confusion. In any case, that community is very transparent. Their forums are open and you're welcome to search the history. Here are just a couple of quick threads from the search result "mobius triangle"
https://safenetforum.org/t/is-the-safe-logo-a-spinning-triangle/5252
https://safenetforum.org/t/breaking-conspiracy-theory-logic/1813/18
https://safenetforum.org/t/safecoin-currency-symbol/8741
Even a tongue-in-cheek post from the developer
https://safenetforum.org/t/privacy-and-crypto-currency-are-hot/1887/3
The thinking seems to have been from other things I've read that a triangle is a very strong and stable structure and a mobius strip has a cryptographic essence to it. strong, encrypted network. That said, they've moved on to the other hexagonal symbol with the nodes as the current iteration after a long drawn out rebranding discussion…also in the forum.
Interestingly enough, they've already presented at google a number of times…the whole thing flew over the heads of the googlers…they'll wake up when it's too late…after milk and naptime in their kindergarten-colored nurseries for giant infants.
silver is going to get crushed. from a technical analysis POV, there is nothing good to show…
that's called deflation, not inflation. things cost less…not more. if you're in dollars, then relative to bitcoin, yea, dollars are inflating at an incredible rate since about 2011.
ripple is and always was centralized. they should be in jail. that guy controls like 2/3 of the ripples and just controls the supply-side to create stability. not even a blockchain. total scam but lots of corporate smoke and mirrors.
none of these objects or symbols have any power or meaning. It's the power and meaning that humans give them. They are merely tools. It's what we do with them that's important.
The cypherpunks have been working on digital cash for decades…since the 70s they understood the problem. it's very clear in their ftp server comms. read assange's book. The hashcash algo which makes up the theory behind one of the main parts of bitcoin was thought up in the 90s and implemented in email and an attempt at a centralized digital gold…it's a battle that people are waking up to years later.
the alan greenspan theories of satoshi are some of the most interesting, strangely enough.
It's very interesting that you mention Bitcoin as being an Ark. VERY interesting…
You carry a card in your pocket (no to mention your phone, the most sophisticated surveillance device in history) but wouldn't put a RFID chip in your hand? The smartphone is way more the mark of the beast that some ultra limited chip.
What's the connection between CGI and the other two?
Pierce is a sleeze and connected to some pedos. Also been involved in some sketchy crypto projects and potentially a billionaire in crypto…doing spoopy stuff in Puerto Rico…
With him at the seeding of EOS…and Dan Larimer and Dad's background with Raytheon and Lockheed Martin…I'd stay the hell away. Time-bombs.
Hell no, but if you have forked tokens, then it's good insurance just to keep them.
Bitcoin and lightning and the reality of the ecosystem around it are just so much larger than BCH. All of the best minds in crypto work on BTC. If Bitcoin doesn't need high throughput on the base layer, then BCH makes ZERO sense. Lightning solves it all. Plus, even if NSA or Craig or Satoshi think BCH is better, that doesn't mean anything. You can have a stroke of genius on day and then a brain fart the next.
https://www.computing.co.uk/ctg/news/3036546/decentralising-the-web-the-key-takeaways
MaidSafe on collaboration
As we mentioned in the introduction, a decentralised web will require a number of different interlocking components, including decentralised storage, decentralised networking, decentralised applications and decentralised identities.
MaidSafe, one of the event's sponsors, is trying to cover all but one these bases with its autonomous SAFE Network, replacing the Transport, Session and Presentation layers of the current seven-layer internet with decentralised alternatives to create a platform for applications. The project is currently at alpha test stage.
So it's all sewn up then, no need for further collaboration? Not at all said CEO David Irvine, who will be speaking at the event, pointing to the firm's open-sourcing of its PARSEC consensus algorithm and its invitation to other projects to help develop it. It's just not always easy to organise joint ventures he said. The summit will bring together many pioneers and innovators (70-plus projects are represented) with each pushing their own ideas for redefining the web.
"[Everyone's] so passionate about improving the internet experience, we are defining the rules for the future, and everyone has a point of view. That does mean there are some egos out there who are quite vocal about the merits of their approach versus others, which makes for good media stories and fuels hype, but it's not what we're really focused on."
Within any movement dedicated to upending the status quo, there lurks the danger of a People's Front of Judea-type scenario with infighting destroying the possibilities of cooperation. Amplifying the risk, many projects in this space are funded through cryptocurrency tokens, which adds profiteering to the mix. It's easy to see how the whole thing could implode, but Irvine says he's now starting to see real collaborations happen and hopes the summit will bring more opportunities.
"We've already been talking to Sir Tim Berners-Lee's Solid project at MIT, and we have a growing number of developers experimenting with applications for the platform," he said.
MaidSafe has been a fixture in the decentralised firmament for a while, predating even the blockchain which is the backbone of many other ventures. At one time it had the space almost to itself but has since been joined by a host of others. Asked about his company's USP, Irvine came back with one word: "honesty".
We asked him to expand.
"There is far too much hype in the wider blockchain crypto space and we have always tried to distance ourselves from that nonsense. We're trying to build something hugely complex and radically different. That doesn't happen overnight, so you have to be upfront with people so they are not misled. Sure we've learned along the way, got some things wrong, but whenever we have we've held our hands up and that has helped us."
And the big-picture goal?
"In essence, privacy, security and freedom. The technology we are building will provide private and secure communications, as well as freedom through the unfettered access to all humanity's data."
trips confirm "you are on the path of awakening"
Lightning does work, though it's a patchwork solution. there's a huge complexity, UX, and adoption problem…almost everything is crypto is back office stuff…it's amazing, but it remains to be seen if they can package it cleanly, securely and under budget. BCH is a hedge on that failing, but it also has it's own scalability problems. MAID is, I think, interesting because it offers not only a hedge, but also a potentially parallel technology in either blockchain result. It's the only ground up project. BTC/BCH/LTC, etc. are as well, but they didn't go deep enough into the meaning of decentralized trust. Money is only part of the equation. It's decentralizing value that is the important piece and in the information age, that means data. gold to oil to data. Only the projects mentioned in the article I posted above got that. The blockchain projects, however, are going to find it very difficult to scale as all-purpose solutions.
Ether was always a scam. I could have been in big from day zero, but I saw it for what it was worth. My suspicions have proven 100% correct. My ignorance was in underestimating the greed, lies, and irrationality of the market. Somehow, I stayed solvent through the post-2013 downturn not unscathed, but it would take lesser men to repeat the feat. The anons should dig on Vitalik's dad. He's the real force behind it…and with a particularly interesting background.
https://nakamotoinstitute.org/mempool/hyperbitcoinization/
Hyperbitcoinization
Daniel Krawisz
March 29, 2014
BitcoinFace
Bitcoin-Induced Demonetization
This article is about the possibility of Bitcoin-induced currency demonetization, or hyperbitcoinization, which is what would happen to any hapless currency that stands in Bitcoin's path of total world domination. If this happens, the currency will rapidly lose value as Bitcoin supplants it. What would such an event be like and how can it be understood economically?
Comparison to Hyperinflation
Demonetization refers to a process by which people cease to use a good as a currency, and hyperinflation is a kind of demonetization when the government inflates the currency at an accelerating pace. Hyperbitcoinization is a different kind, though it will appear (superficially) similar. In both kinds events, prices in the doomed currency will skyrocket until it is no longer a currency at all.
There are two essential differences between hyperinflation and hyperbitcoinization. The first is that a currency hyperinflates with restricted competition from other currencies, whereas hyperbitcoinization happens because of competition with Bitcoin. This is because capital controls are much more effective on other fiat currencies than on Bitcoin, so it is easy for Bitcoin to cross borders and compete with anything.
The second is that in a hyperinflation, the government expands the money supply to outpace people's inflation expectations. Demonetization occurs as a result of their destructive interaction. Whereas a hyperbitcoinization event need not be accompanied by any change in the supply of either currency.
As the government forms a habit of inflating the money supply, its people form a habit of anticipating rising prices. This prevents the government from gaining as much each time it inflates. Thus, to get the same kick, the government must inflate more. The money loses value once people anticipate such heavy inflation that they can't spend it fast enough and it no longer functions as a currency.
Hyperinflation is an entrepreneurial act on the part of government, in the sense that it involves a continually changing intervention that prevents an equilibrium from forming. The government must continually alter its own behavior to stay ahead of its people's. The moment they begin to anticipate its future policy, the government must change the policy by increasing the rate of inflation.
Hyperbitcoinization is a voluntary transition from an inferior currency to a superior one, and its adoption is a series of individual acts of entrepreneurship rather than a single monopolist that games the system.
Whoops, You Just Got Bitcoin'd!
Based on these two differences, I make two predictions about a hyperbitcoinization event.
A hyperbitcoinization event will be much quicker than a hyperinflation event. I have two reasons for this. First, the government will have a much greater difficulty preventing bitcoins from entering the country due to the impotency of capital controls upon it. Second, hyperinflation is inherently an attempt to fool people, whereas hyperbitcoinization is quite regular and predictable (at least by comparison). Therefore people will more easily see that they had better switch over. Thus, as fast as hyperinflation is, hyperbitcoinization will be even faster. It will happen much faster than you expect.
Hyperbitcoinization will not disrupt the economy to nearly the same degree as hyperinflation. The currency is the instrument of the division of labor, and hyperinflation makes it unreliable and forces people to use worse alternatives. In a hyperbitcoinization event, people switch from a fundamentally inferior currency to a superior one, whereas in a hyperinflationary event people will only switch to a new currency once the old currency becomes worse than the next best alternative, such as gold or detergent. Hyperbitcoinization should be accompanied by a rapid improvement in productivity and wealth.
Hyperbitcoinization will probably be a confusing time for everyone, like a second adolescence. However, once it is over, no one will be able to imagine how we got by with the earlier system.
99.9% of cryptocurrencies ARE a scam, I agree. They run from simple frauds to sophisticated schemes likely by these evildoers. However, volatility in the market is NOT evidence of nefariousness in the underlying. Farm commodities are more volatile than BTC…
The value and capital unlocked by a successful distributed trust system would be immense.
That's Qurious….
Bcash…
Is Ver a jew?
This shit is dumb as fuck. Doesn't even show an understanding of the technology of blockchain or what back office scaling means. DUMB AS FUCK.
This totally misses who the people invested in Bitcoin are. This is just a shill ploy.
Notable my ass.
Interdasting…
Conclusion…