Interesting read and learned something new too: " So what is the Tunnelbear VPN of Money?
Bitcoin!
Bitcoin is a censorship resistant digital currency, electronic peer to peer cash, the first of its kind. Unlike mobile money, when you own bitcoin, no one can stop you from transferring it because it is decentralized. It cannot be shut down because it is not issued by central authorities like banks or Telcos." |
|
|
|
This is a really interesting article from Pew Research on how concerned people are with the privacy of their personal information. I wonder if they are aware of how much of this information comes from the current financial system? The state of privacy in America: What we learned1. Fully 91% of adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies. 2. Americans express a consistent lack of confidence about the security of everyday communication channels and the organizations that control them. 3. For most Americans who are making decisions about sharing their information in return for a product, service or other benefit, the context and conditions of the transactions matter. 4. Some 74% say it is “very important” to them that they be in control of who can get information about them, and 65% say it is “very important” to them to control what information is collected about them. 5. Some 86% of internet users have taken steps online to remove or mask their digital footprints, but many say they would like to do more or are unaware of tools they could use. 6. Many Americans struggle to understand the nature and scope of data collected about them. 7. Young adults generally are more focused than their elders when it comes to online privacy. 8. Americans are divided when it comes to their level of concern about surveillance programs. 9. A majority of the U.S. public believes changes in law could make a difference in protecting privacy – especially when it comes to policies on retention of their data. 10. Many technology experts predict that few individuals will have the energy or resources to protect themselves from “dataveillance” in the coming years http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/01/20/the-state-of-privacy-in-america/"1. Fully 91% of adults agree or strongly agree that consumers have lost control of how personal information is collected and used by companies." Very interesting and concerning, but not surprising. |
|
|
|
Going to have a designer work on the cover for the book. For your reference, here is the mock design. We have changed a few things since, like the title Improve Your Odds: The Four Pillars of Business Success. If anyone has any ideas, or is interested in participating in the design, now would be a good time. We are getting closer by the day, so we want to get everything ready. I like it all with one exception: “Imagine that you are creating a complete and functioning system with a multitude of subsystems and component parts. Now imagine that this system you’re creating is somehow disordered to the point where some of those components are not working properly, causing those subsystems to fail to work in harmony with one another" Needs to be shortened, perhaps limited to 20 words or less. IMO Thanks, RJF, I will take a look. Edit: That is just a temporary text placement. The final version will be very different. The book is looking very good. It has taken a little longer and a lot more efforts, but well worth it. Consistent with our philosophy, we want it to be the "Best In Class". It will open many new doors for DNotes, with great awareness and credibility. We have a whole team working very hard behind the scene. They are doing an awesome job and I am very appreciative of their contributions. That is another DNotes' strength that may not be so obvious. Understood. The cover concept is attractive, ads a little mystery, makes you want take another look. Nice. Thanks, RJF. |
|
|
|
Going to have a designer work on the cover for the book. For your reference, here is the mock design. We have changed a few things since, like the title Improve Your Odds: The Four Pillars of Business Success. If anyone has any ideas, or is interested in participating in the design, now would be a good time. We are getting closer by the day, so we want to get everything ready. I like it all with one exception: “Imagine that you are creating a complete and functioning system with a multitude of subsystems and component parts. Now imagine that this system you’re creating is somehow disordered to the point where some of those components are not working properly, causing those subsystems to fail to work in harmony with one another" Needs to be shortened, perhaps limited to 20 words or less. IMO Thanks, RJF, I will take a look. Edit: That is just a temporary text placement. The final version will be very different. The book is looking very good. It has taken a little longer and a lot more efforts, but well worth it. Consistent with our philosophy, we want it to be the "Best In Class". It will open many new doors for DNotes, with great awareness and credibility. We have a whole team working very hard behind the scene. They are doing an awesome job and I am very appreciative of their contributions. That is another DNotes' strength that may not be so obvious. |
|
|
|
Here is another interesting article. Essentially, if you are willing to pay the extra toll fees you can take the fast route. That may not help mass acceptance of Bitcoin any time soon. " We are paying more fees and the transactions are taking more time to deliver," Bitex chief marketing officer Manu Beaudroit told CoinDesk. "For deposits it's taking up to one day and we are paying five [times] more of the [average] fee."
At press time, data from 21.co indicates that users paying the standard wallet fee of 10 satoshis per byte would have to wait between five and 67 blocks for transactions to confirm, a process it estimates could take as many as 13 hours
For more expedient transaction times, 21's service recommends a fee of 0.0023 BTC, or about 97 cents, a 2,200% increase from the default fee.” Bitcoin's Capacity Issues No 'Nightmare', But Higher Fees May Be New Reality Stan Higgins | Published on March 3, 2016 at 18:29 GMT While bitcoin may not be facing a "nightmare" scenario as indicated by the media, digital currency users are now paying higher-than-average fees and waiting longer for transactions to confirm due to an unknown disruptive network user. The incident has sparked a flurry of questions about the nature of the increased transaction load on the network as it comes amid the ongoing debate over scaling the bitcoin network. Known as the "block size debate", the issue has fragmented the bitcoin community into two camps:Bitcoin Core, the network’s volunteer developers, who are seeking to change to how signatures are stored, thus increasing capacity as early as April of this year; and Bitcoin Classic, a contingent of developers and enthusiasts who have launched software that would more quickly force an update to the 1 MB cap on transactions they believe is an impediment to user adoption. At issue, is that when a user sends a bitcoin transaction, an extra cost is attached in the form of a fee. Effectively, bitcoin transaction fees serve as a way for users to bid to be included in a block, with that cost rising or falling with demand for space. Adding to the current problems is that a number of bitcoin wallets use a hard-coded fee amount: 0.0001 BTC (about 4 cents). Fees determine the priority that a transaction will receive as miners bundle them into the latest block. The higher the fee, the more priority it typically receives. Signs suggest that the commonly used amount, at least for the time being, may not be enough, which in turn is affecting wallets that are still using standard fees. The result is that some transactions with low priority remain unprocessed, which in turn is putting added pressure on users and businesses. Services like South American bitcoin exchange Bitex.la and peer-to-peer bitcion trading platform BitQuick are paying more in transaction fees, and observers are pointing to the situation as the scenario for the bitcoin network. Read More: http://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-capacity-nightmare-fees-reality/ |
|
|
|
"When a new technology enters the mainstream, policymakers are often eager to regulate it in an effort to ensure fair use, consumer protection and accountability. The problem arises when multiple agencies, each with their own definitions of the technology and its uses, create broad based regulations that overlap or conflict with one another."
Personally, from what I've seen on the other side of these agencies, regulation is driven by much more basic human emotions, greed & control. I've listened to senior level administrators justify sweeping changes in regulations with justification at the level "because I can"
When regulation kicks in, so do the fees, charges, budget increases, new personnel and good old fashioned power along with every other way possible for a government to squeeze money from the new technology. And, there is also, quite simply, the need to control and dominate, a very basic human failing I'm afraid. Sorry to be cynical but, that's the way I see it in most cases.
RJF, I wish I can say that you are wrong. Unfortunately, we have been seeing too much of that. |
|
|
|
Alt-cap-to-Btc-cap ratio just topped 18%.
Deep breath, everyone. Yeh okay, that capital may not be pouring into your crypto at this second; but what we're seeing here is the transition from all-cryptos-are-tied-to-Bitcoin's-apron-strings to capital-flowing-more-and-more-so-directly-into-individual-altcoins.
And the fiat price of cryptos is rising steadily. And all indications are that the economic realities driving those prices higher aren't going away.
Mark (IndiaMikeZulu), Australia
It is looking more promising, Mark. As a group, Alt-cap-to Btc-Cap has been slowly gaining ground. |
|
|
|
Great article written by Perianne Boring: What the Internet was for your parents, the blockchain will be for youWhen the Internet became mainstream in the mid-1990s, it was difficult to fully grasp the impact the transformative technology would have on society. Policymakers didn’t know how to regulate it, partly because they didn’t understand what it was capable of. At its onset, if a flurry of conflicting regulations from different government agencies had been imposed on this burgeoning technology, the Internet as we know it today might not exist. Instead, we have this extraordinary source of information and a vessel of global commerce that is an essential aspect of everyday life for so many of us... ...When a new technology enters the mainstream, policymakers are often eager to regulate it in an effort to ensure fair use, consumer protection and accountability. The problem arises when multiple agencies, each with their own definitions of the technology and its uses, create broad based regulations that overlap or conflict with one another. The U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) has classified bitcoin as a commodity, while the Security Exchange Commission (SEC) is looking at it through the lens of a security. The Internal Revenue Service treats virtual currency as property, and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network regulates it as currency. This patchwork of incompatible rules can cause gridlock in the industry and stifle innovation, potentially forcing companies to domicile and innovate elsewhere.In addition, there are lawmakers and regulators on Capitol Hill who have little working knowledge of digital currencies or blockchain technology, making it even more difficult to successfully regulate. Regulation is a process that requires a dialogue between government agencies, lawmakers and industry leaders who have a deep understanding of how the technology works. Full article: http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/technology/271163-what-the-internet-was-for-your-parents-the-blockchain-will-beGood article, they really need to make up their minds about what digital currency is. "Fortunately, next month these parties are coming together at the DC Blockchain Summit, an event that brings a cross section of government agencies and lawmakers together with industry leaders to have a holistic discussion about the future of blockchain technology. Look out for Wall Street powerhouses and industry experts like former JP Morgan executive and CEO of Digital Asset Holdings Blythe Masters – who will share their knowledge and engage in an open conversation with policymakers, paving the way for consistent, effective regulation." - Hopefully there will be good representation for our industry. Excellent article. Perianne Boring did a great job in clearly stating the case. Hope the right people are listening. |
|
|
|
The article is certainly very interesting. Replacing fiat currency with digital currency is an interesting concept, at the surface. But in practice, it will have serious unintended consequences, beyond what we could even imagine today. Risking the wealth of nations with early stage technology that is still evolving is reckless and irresponsible. Let the private sectors continue to work on it for the next 20 years in a relatively small scale. We still maintain the position that DNotes will serve as a trusted digital currency to supplement, not replace, fiat currencies globally one day. I agree with the following quotes from the article: “ A distributive ledger that replaced the current system of clearing and settling securities could save some of the $54 billion currently spent a year on those services, he said.
Still, digital units like Bitcoin won’t replace more established currencies like the pound, dollar or euro, he said.
“Almost always, these currency substitutions occur only once the existing currency has become deeply compromised,” he said. “Even then, the thing people naturally reach for is an existing, trusted currency — often the US dollar — rather than some entirely new unit of account.”
A central bank digital currency “might threaten” commercial banks lending activity, according to Broadbent. “If bank lending became scarcer, or more expensive, it’s likely that investment and economic activity would suffer.”
“Taking deposits away from banks could impair their ability to make the loans in the first place,” he said. “Banks would be more reliant on wholesale markets, a source of funding that didn’t prove particularly stable during the crisis, and could reduce their lending.” |
|
|
|
Here is another great article, China's firewall is causing miners outside the country to recieve blocks well after they've been solved by Chinese miners. This means other miners would be working on old blocks, wasting electricity and eating into their revenue. With large scale mining operations monopolizing the SHA 256 algorithm, this begs the question; could an alternative algorithm that is more asic resistant be a long term solution to keep a currency's mining decentralized? --------- Why the Great Firewall of China Is Causing Serious Issues for Bitcoin Minershttps://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-the-great-firewall-of-china-is-causing-serious-issues-for-bitcoin-miners-1456508966What’s wrong with increasing the block size limit? This is the question that a portion of the Bitcoin community has been asking almost nonstop since the controversy around this possible alteration to the protocol went into hyperdrive last year. In a recent appearance at Bitcoin Meetup Switzerland, Bitcoin Core Contributor Jonas Schnelli covered at least one possible issue with raising the block size limit too quickly: the effect larger blocks have on wasted resources for miners. It should be noted that Schnelli has decided not to take an official, public stance on the block size debate. In Bitcoin Mining, Every Second CountsA key point to understand about bitcoin mining is every second of hashing affects one’s ability to turn a profit. New blocks are not received by all nodes on the network instantaneously, which means miners are, at least at times, wasting resources by building on an old block that is no longer the most recent. After all, a miner can only build on top of someone else’s found block after he knows that block exists. Schnelli explained this issue during his recent talk in Zurich: “There are consequences with 2-megabyte blocks. Chinese miners -- they are now [for] 2- megabyte blocks, but maybe it will turn out to be a problem for them . . . Every second really counts . . . When you mine a block that is no longer valid and you don’t get the information that a new block is here, you’re wasting lots of energy. If it’s just ten seconds you mine on the wrong block, you lose energy, and you lose coins in the end. That’s why, with Chinese miners [especially], every second counts, and [with] 2-megabyte [blocks], it’s twice the bandwidth you need.” This is not the first time a Bitcoin Core contributor has talked about the issue of block propagation in terms of the mining process. Multiple developers discussed this problem in interviews during the leadup to Scaling Bitcoin Montreal. Do Bigger Blocks Mean Bigger Profits for Bigger Miners?In the past, Bitcoin Core Contributor Peter Todd also has discussed this issue. During his presentation at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal, Todd explained how lousy block propagation becomes more problematic when the Great Firewall of China is factored into the equation. Due to the way the Great Firewall works, miners in China often find out about new blocks before miners in other countries (especially across the world in the United States). Since China also currently holds a majority of the hashing power on the network, miners who are not in China end up losing out on a bit of revenue. This is due to the fact that, on average, miners outside of China will hear about new blocks later than miners inside of China, which means non-Chinese miners waste more resources on blocks that have already been found. Todd pointed to some past research to illustrate his point during his Scaling Bitcoin talk: “We’ve done various simulation results. A big one that works out very well is Pieter Wuille’s work where we’ve gone and shown that -- and he actually used realistic mining and latency networks with this where when you look at the situation in China, for the amount of time it takes data to propagate over the Great Firewall of China and their relative hashing power percentage -- people who are not part of that group are earning something about like eight percent less revenue.” Todd noted that losses are lower in reality due to Blockstream Core Tech Engineer and Bitcoin Core Contributor Matt Corallo’s Bitcoin Relay Network, and it should also be pointed out that Pieter Wuille’s work was testing 20-megabyte blocks. The point here is large miners have an added advantage over small miners due to the time it takes for miners to learn about new blocks. If the block size limit were increased, it would take longer for blocks to propagate around the network, thus increasing this advantage. One of the original founders of Bitcoin Classic, Jonathon Toomim, also presented on the issues related to block propagation with bigger blocks at Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong. His testing focused on the now-withdrawn BIP 101 proposal, and he concluded that the increase to 8 megabytes would not be appropriate. During his tests, he found it took anywhere between 15 and 150 seconds to send block data to another peer when the two parties were on opposite sides of the Great Firewall of China. At the Bitcoin Foundation’s DevCore Workshop back in October, Bitcoin Core Developer Gregory Maxwell explained that the second-to-last mining pool to learn about a new block is currently dealing with a 5 percent orphan rate. On a related note, there’s a theorized vulnerability in Bitcoin mining, known as selfish mining, where a miner may decide to not let others know about a block they found in order to give themselves a head start on finding the next block. Possible Solutions to Block Propagation IssuesThere are a few proposed solutions that could solve the issue of slow block propagation on the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin Core’s current roadmap includes two such solutions: invertible bloom lookup tables (IBLTs) and weak blocks. According to the Bitcoin Core website, these two features can offer a 90 percent reduction in critical bandwidth when relaying blocks, which should allow for a safer increase of the block size limit. Two possible solutions recently brought up by Bitcoin Classic Developer Gavin Andresen on this issue are UDP broadcast of block headers and validationless mining. Bitcoin Security Consultant Sergio Lerner recently wrote a blog post on the latter of the two options. There are also other proposed solutions for this issue, but the point is that plenty of smart people are working on potential fixes. Based on Bitcoin Core’s roadmap, it appears that IBLTs and weak blocks are the most likely solutions to get implemented first. It should also be mentioned that, as Blockchain Capital Managing Partner Brock Pierce recently pointed out, China’s control over the majority of hashing power may not last forever. Scaling Bitcoin Is Not SimpleOne of the last points made by Schnelli at Bitcoin Meetup Switzerland is that the issue of scalability is not as simple as some have made it out to be. Schnelli noted: “I don’t want to say I’m looking behind every curtain, but if you don’t really go down to the technical fundamentals it’s easy to say, ‘Increase the block size.’ Sure. Sounds nice. Everybody can understand it. But there are better solutions that maybe take more energy to think about.” Like many other developers involved with Bitcoin Core, Schnelli views Segregated Witness (SegWit) as a viable alternative to simply increasing the block size limit. Bitcoin Core Contributor Eric Lombrozo recently outlined five benefits of the SegWit proposal at Blockchain Agenda San Diego. This is a very interesting problem with widespread consequences. The problem with ASIC resistant algorithm's as a solution is that if it can be solved by a computer, someone can create a chip to do the same, make it smaller and more efficient. As soon as the demand is high enough, someone will find a way. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to approach this problem though.
I am certain that we can not have it all. Something will have to give, but at this point in time, no one is quite sure what is the best solution; perhaps a middle ground. In the mean time, we have plenty to do and taking good notes while the industry is all over the place burning up big bucks by the millions. Being open source and decentralized, we must plan and execute very cautiously. Our best shot is to fire only one shot and not missed the mark. That is what we are positioning DNotes to do. At this point, it is a moving target and we are waiting, waiting …."I am certain that we can not have it all. Something will have to give, but at this point in time, no one is quite sure what is the best solution; perhaps a middle ground. In the mean time, we have plenty to do and taking good notes while the industry is all over the place burning up big bucks by the millions. Being open source and decentralized, we must plan and execute very cautiously. Our best shot is to fire only one shot and not missed the mark. That is what we are positioning DNotes to do. At this point, it is a moving target and we are waiting, waiting …." I appreciate that quote, might take that - thanks! Glad that you like it, TeeGee. |
|
|
|
Here is another great article, China's firewall is causing miners outside the country to recieve blocks well after they've been solved by Chinese miners. This means other miners would be working on old blocks, wasting electricity and eating into their revenue. With large scale mining operations monopolizing the SHA 256 algorithm, this begs the question; could an alternative algorithm that is more asic resistant be a long term solution to keep a currency's mining decentralized? --------- Why the Great Firewall of China Is Causing Serious Issues for Bitcoin Minershttps://bitcoinmagazine.com/articles/why-the-great-firewall-of-china-is-causing-serious-issues-for-bitcoin-miners-1456508966What’s wrong with increasing the block size limit? This is the question that a portion of the Bitcoin community has been asking almost nonstop since the controversy around this possible alteration to the protocol went into hyperdrive last year. In a recent appearance at Bitcoin Meetup Switzerland, Bitcoin Core Contributor Jonas Schnelli covered at least one possible issue with raising the block size limit too quickly: the effect larger blocks have on wasted resources for miners. It should be noted that Schnelli has decided not to take an official, public stance on the block size debate. In Bitcoin Mining, Every Second CountsA key point to understand about bitcoin mining is every second of hashing affects one’s ability to turn a profit. New blocks are not received by all nodes on the network instantaneously, which means miners are, at least at times, wasting resources by building on an old block that is no longer the most recent. After all, a miner can only build on top of someone else’s found block after he knows that block exists. Schnelli explained this issue during his recent talk in Zurich: “There are consequences with 2-megabyte blocks. Chinese miners -- they are now [for] 2- megabyte blocks, but maybe it will turn out to be a problem for them . . . Every second really counts . . . When you mine a block that is no longer valid and you don’t get the information that a new block is here, you’re wasting lots of energy. If it’s just ten seconds you mine on the wrong block, you lose energy, and you lose coins in the end. That’s why, with Chinese miners [especially], every second counts, and [with] 2-megabyte [blocks], it’s twice the bandwidth you need.” This is not the first time a Bitcoin Core contributor has talked about the issue of block propagation in terms of the mining process. Multiple developers discussed this problem in interviews during the leadup to Scaling Bitcoin Montreal. Do Bigger Blocks Mean Bigger Profits for Bigger Miners?In the past, Bitcoin Core Contributor Peter Todd also has discussed this issue. During his presentation at Scaling Bitcoin Montreal, Todd explained how lousy block propagation becomes more problematic when the Great Firewall of China is factored into the equation. Due to the way the Great Firewall works, miners in China often find out about new blocks before miners in other countries (especially across the world in the United States). Since China also currently holds a majority of the hashing power on the network, miners who are not in China end up losing out on a bit of revenue. This is due to the fact that, on average, miners outside of China will hear about new blocks later than miners inside of China, which means non-Chinese miners waste more resources on blocks that have already been found. Todd pointed to some past research to illustrate his point during his Scaling Bitcoin talk: “We’ve done various simulation results. A big one that works out very well is Pieter Wuille’s work where we’ve gone and shown that -- and he actually used realistic mining and latency networks with this where when you look at the situation in China, for the amount of time it takes data to propagate over the Great Firewall of China and their relative hashing power percentage -- people who are not part of that group are earning something about like eight percent less revenue.” Todd noted that losses are lower in reality due to Blockstream Core Tech Engineer and Bitcoin Core Contributor Matt Corallo’s Bitcoin Relay Network, and it should also be pointed out that Pieter Wuille’s work was testing 20-megabyte blocks. The point here is large miners have an added advantage over small miners due to the time it takes for miners to learn about new blocks. If the block size limit were increased, it would take longer for blocks to propagate around the network, thus increasing this advantage. One of the original founders of Bitcoin Classic, Jonathon Toomim, also presented on the issues related to block propagation with bigger blocks at Scaling Bitcoin Hong Kong. His testing focused on the now-withdrawn BIP 101 proposal, and he concluded that the increase to 8 megabytes would not be appropriate. During his tests, he found it took anywhere between 15 and 150 seconds to send block data to another peer when the two parties were on opposite sides of the Great Firewall of China. At the Bitcoin Foundation’s DevCore Workshop back in October, Bitcoin Core Developer Gregory Maxwell explained that the second-to-last mining pool to learn about a new block is currently dealing with a 5 percent orphan rate. On a related note, there’s a theorized vulnerability in Bitcoin mining, known as selfish mining, where a miner may decide to not let others know about a block they found in order to give themselves a head start on finding the next block. Possible Solutions to Block Propagation IssuesThere are a few proposed solutions that could solve the issue of slow block propagation on the Bitcoin network. Bitcoin Core’s current roadmap includes two such solutions: invertible bloom lookup tables (IBLTs) and weak blocks. According to the Bitcoin Core website, these two features can offer a 90 percent reduction in critical bandwidth when relaying blocks, which should allow for a safer increase of the block size limit. Two possible solutions recently brought up by Bitcoin Classic Developer Gavin Andresen on this issue are UDP broadcast of block headers and validationless mining. Bitcoin Security Consultant Sergio Lerner recently wrote a blog post on the latter of the two options. There are also other proposed solutions for this issue, but the point is that plenty of smart people are working on potential fixes. Based on Bitcoin Core’s roadmap, it appears that IBLTs and weak blocks are the most likely solutions to get implemented first. It should also be mentioned that, as Blockchain Capital Managing Partner Brock Pierce recently pointed out, China’s control over the majority of hashing power may not last forever. Scaling Bitcoin Is Not SimpleOne of the last points made by Schnelli at Bitcoin Meetup Switzerland is that the issue of scalability is not as simple as some have made it out to be. Schnelli noted: “I don’t want to say I’m looking behind every curtain, but if you don’t really go down to the technical fundamentals it’s easy to say, ‘Increase the block size.’ Sure. Sounds nice. Everybody can understand it. But there are better solutions that maybe take more energy to think about.” Like many other developers involved with Bitcoin Core, Schnelli views Segregated Witness (SegWit) as a viable alternative to simply increasing the block size limit. Bitcoin Core Contributor Eric Lombrozo recently outlined five benefits of the SegWit proposal at Blockchain Agenda San Diego. This is a very interesting problem with widespread consequences. The problem with ASIC resistant algorithm's as a solution is that if it can be solved by a computer, someone can create a chip to do the same, make it smaller and more efficient. As soon as the demand is high enough, someone will find a way. I'm sure there are a multitude of ways to approach this problem though.
I am certain that we can not have it all. Something will have to give, but at this point in time, no one is quite sure what is the best solution; perhaps a middle ground. In the mean time, we have plenty to do and taking good notes while the industry is all over the place burning up big bucks by the millions. Being open source and decentralized, we must plan and execute very cautiously. Our best shot is to fire only one shot and not missed the mark. That is what we are positioning DNotes to do. At this point, it is a moving target and we are waiting, waiting …. |
|
|
|
- SNIP -
I am also grateful that DCEBrief doesn't use daily bitcoin price swings as 'filler' news EVERY day - it gets old very fast.
I so agree with you on that! I think it's immature at best when the others do that, I really hate it! The price is not the most important thing and to keep throwing it in our face creates a circus atmosphere that only catches the interest of the casual observer or the week minded "investor" DCEBrief is THE professional news and opinion publication for our industry at the moment. Lets keep it that way! DCEBrief target audience goes beyond our industry. If mass acceptance of digital currency were to take place, a medium to bridge the knowledge gap is vital. Most people outside of our industry have no idea what is a good price of Bitcoin or other altcoins; neither are they interested in all that nasty infightings. The vast majority of them need to feel comfortable with a name they can trust. Building a trusted brand has been our job one. We also believe in building a purposeful digital currency for everyone worldwide to participate, and we have been approaching it systematically by using many building blocks that are strategically linked. |
|
|
|
This is interesting - I knew small business was the 'engine of job creation' in US, but I wasn't aware (or never thought about it?) the biggest impact was from new businesses: ‘The Looming Entrepreneurial Boom’: Kauffman Weighs In"In any given year, new and young businesses create nearly all net new jobs in the U.S. economy. Put more starkly: If you want new jobs, then you want new and young firms. Older, established companies tend, on balance, to be net destroyers of jobs." http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/02/entrepreneurship-and-making-across-the-country/470385/New business formation is of critical importance because of new job creation. Every new job added is a new job created. Unfortunately, we are losing 470,000 companies a year while creating 400,000 new companies. That is a net loss of 70,000 companies per year. We used to have a net positive of 100 K. Below is what I posted on February 16, 2016:In order to gain a better understanding why I became so passionate in writing a book for small business owners let us examine some hard facts: According to the latest data from the U.S. Census Bureau: There 6 million operating (active) businesses in the United States with the following employment breakdown: 3,791,000 4 or less employees 1,000,000 5 to 9 employees 600,000 19 to 19 employees 500,000 20 to 99 employees 90,000 100 to 499 employees 18,000 500 to 10,000 employees 1,000 10,000 or more employees "America’s small businesses are the engines of job creation. Small businesses create seven of every ten new jobs and they employ just over half of the country’s private sector workforce. (SBA Office of Advocacy)" Source: http://smallbusiness.house.gov/uploadedfiles/april_recess_small_biz_talking_pts.pdf“The U.S. Census Bureau reports that the total number of new business startups and business closures per year -- the birth and death rates of American companies -- have crossed for the first time since the measurement began. I am referring to employer businesses, those with one or more employees, the real engines of economic growth. Four hundred thousand new businesses are being born annually nationwide, while 470,000 per year are dying.” “Because we have misdiagnosed the cause and effect of economic growth, we have misdiagnosed the cause and effect of job creation. To get back on track, we need to quit pinning everything on innovation, and we need to start focusing on the almighty entrepreneurs and business builders. And that means we have to find them,” according to Jim Clifton is Chairman and CEO of Gallup. He is the author of The Coming Jobs Wa rand coauthor of Entrepreneurial StrengthsFinder Source: http://www.gallup.com/businessjournal/180431/american-entrepreneurship-dead-alive.aspxImprove Your Odds
The Four Pillars Of Business SuccessBy Alan Yong " As we continue to strive for a better life, at times in frustration and a feeling of helplessness, let us agree on one simple truth: where you are right now is of less consequence than where you are going from here. There is little that can be done to regain missed opportunities or retroactively correct the mistakes made in the past.
However, with an awareness of our shortcomings, willingness and commitment to change, we can learn from history and our past mistakes. We can also gain deep knowledge and wisdom from others, who have gone down the same path and beyond. This book honors those who have already achieved everything that they desire in life and in business, but specifically written for those whose aspirations remain just beyond their grasp.
We do not believe that long term business success is an accident or the result of good fortune. Those who have achieved great success, you and your employees must have done many things right and we deeply respect you for your accomplishment.
However, for those who have yet to achieve their objectives, including anyone whose business still has room for dramatic improvements, this book should prove thoughtful, insightful, and helpful. This is a book written specifically for startups, small business owners and their management teams (companies ranging in size from new startups to 500 employees), and can provide them with the help and guidance they need to gain the success for which they strive. If that sounds like you - if you’re passionate about what you are doing and desire nothing more than to obtain the type of business mastery that will help you be the true architect of your company’s success, then read on.
I trust that this book will also be helpful and inspirational to many employees since they are one of the key pillars of business success. Additionally, I have made a persuasive case to replace the much disliked traditional employee performance review with “Mutual Goals Review” that is significantly more rewarding and collaborative in promoting employees career advancement with a unified purpose well aligned in the fulfillment of the company’s goals, missions, and ultimate vision.” |
|
|
|
This is turning out to be a really sad situation. How a Peaceful Bitcoin Community Turned to Savage WarRead More: http://www.blockcy.com/how-bitcoin-community-turned-to-war“ That brings us to the present where the atmosphere in the community is riddled with conspiracy theories, allegations and counter allegations, accusations and counteraccusations, everyone constantly at everyone’s throat.
More worryingly, mechanisms have been put in place to take full control of the narrative in regards to bitcoin development. The bitcoin mailing list is heavily moderated. The bitcoin IRC channels where much bitcoin development discussion takes place are likewise under tight control. The biggest bitcoin forums engage in open censorship. Rumors are that extremists elements of bitcoin are moving to shun all reasonable voices and drive them away, with Luke-Jr, a bitcoin developer and blockstream contractor recently commenting that he could not see how “they” could work with Gavin Andresen or Jeff Garzik moving forward.
What was once a dream of liberation has turned into a nightmare of control, with bitcoin staring at the abyss, for what once was bitcoin, some argue, is no more.” |
|
|
|
This is quite entertaining. And here are three of my favorites: Trumpchain @trumpchain “ I will end 1MB blocks and protect our borders! We need to MAKE THE BLOCKCHAIN SAFE & GREAT AGAIN! #Trump2016 5:15 PM - 18 Feb 2016” Trumpchain@trumpchain " Bitcoin Classic. Oh, Bitcoin Classic, Bitcoin Classic. Everything is Bitcoin Classic. What happens? Nothing." Trumpchain @trumpchain Feb 16 " Nothing ever happens; nothing ever happens. You look at Bitcoin Classic. It is going to be a disaster. People are closing up shops."With Satirical Trumpchain, Donald Trump Meets BitcoinStan Higgins | Published on February 21, 2016 at 16:37 GMT Can real estate mogul and United States presidential contender Donald Trump make bitcoin great again? A satirical Twitter account called Trumpchain doesn’t quite answer that question, but it does offer an amusing take on the controversial figure's bid for the White House. The profile, described as a bot “that mixes Donald Trump speeches and tweets with comments from /r/bitcoin”, has undoubtedly become a vehicle for a bizarre mix of comedy and humor as it relates to the bitcoin space. Read More: http://www.coindesk.com/with-satirical-trumpchain-donald-trump-meets-bitcoin/https://twitter.com/trumpchain |
|
|
|
What a sad situation. It is getting worse by the day. |
|
|
|
There was ' Grexit' in 2015 leading to the financial crises of Greece and the possibility of the struggling nation leaving the European Union (EU). And now instability in the eurozone is prompting the possibility of a ' Brexit', which would see the UK leaving the 28-nation European Union. So far it has not been a big price boost for Bitcoin and other digital currencies; but may be, this is barely the beginning of serious financial and social-economic crises among the 28 EU nations no one could have imagined. Brexit Rumors Fail to Boost Market as Bitcoin Price Steady at $420Charles Bovaird | Published on February 26, 2016 at 19:08 GMT Despite periods of volatility, the global bitcoin market remained calm this week, gaining 1% while fluctuating between $410 and $450. The digital currency was trading at $423.52 at 00:00 (UTC) on 26th February, up from $421.16 at 00:00 (UTC) on 19th February, according to the CoinDesk USD Bitcoin Price Index (BPI). What may be most notable, however, is the lack of a price increase given potential macro-economic instability in the eurozone. One geopolitical development that coincided with bitcoin’s price volatility was the possibility of aBrexit, which would see the UK leaving the 28-nation European Union (EU). The event is of interest to traders given bitcoin’s historical response to similar events, rising substantially on the rumored 'Grexit' in 2015 and emerging as an asset class in 2013 given its strong climb in response to economic uncertainties in Cyprus. Still, there were periods of turbulence in the latest trading cycle. The currency rose sharply on 20th February, appreciating to $443.02 by 18:00 (UTC), up from $421.33 at 00:00 (UTC) for a more than 5% gain. Bitcoin also climbed the following day, rising from $436.13 at 00:00 (UTC) to $446.74 at 07:00 (UTC). However, by 14:00 (UTC), the digital currency had fallen to $429.99. This price turbulence continued later in the week, as bitcoin dropped from $423.34 at 00:00 (UTC) on 24th February to $411.77 at 05:00 (UTC). The digital currency quickly recovered from this dip, rising to $424.45 by 15:00 (UTC). This compared to the seven-day period between 12th February and 19th February, when the digital currency rose from $377.82 to $421.69. Brexit fails to stir market While UK citizens have long been skeptical of the EU, the tension surrounding the country’s participation in the political and economic partnership has thus far not been strong enough for the nation to break free. However, disrest has been growing, and a survey conducted in September showed 43% of participants thought the UK should remain in the EU and 40% believed the nation should leave. A separate poll done in February indicated 38% of respondents wanted to exit the 28-nation partnership, while 37% wanted to stay. Now, the nation is looking ahead to June 23, when voters will go to the polls and participate in a referendum to decide whether the nation stays in the EU or goes its own way. The anticipation surrounding this event has created significant uncertainty, which may be providing tailwinds for bitcoin prices. In times of market turmoil, bitcoin frequently enjoys a bump in price, as some consider it a safe haven. While the chance the UK might leave is likely placing upward pressure on the digital currency’s price, a Brexit would probably fuel sharper gains. Arthur Hayes, co-founder and CEO of digital currency exchange BitMEX, commented on how this event could affect bitcoin prices, telling CoinDesk: "If by June the odds of Brexit occurring are substantial, we could see a Grexit sized pump in the bitcoin price." Read More: http://www.coindesk.com/brexit-rumors-fail-to-spark-market-as-bitcoin-price-steady-at-420/ |
|
|
|
I appreciated this write up on medium from Brian Armstrong (Coinbase CEO) as a call to action for bitcoin's scaling issue. The Bitcoin Roundtable Consensus Proposal — Too Little, Too Late. The roundtable’s consensus proposal falls short in several areas, and only offers words (not working code). Luckily, we already have a working solution to solve bitcoin’s scaling challenge today: BitcoinClassic’s 2MB hard fork. I think bitcoin will be best served by continuing on the following path: 1 Over the next few weeks the industry should continue upgrading to BitcoinClassic. This will provide some immediate relief to bitcoin’s scaling problem and help restore confidence in the system. Once 75% of recent blocks mined contain a vote for Classic, there will be a 30 day waiting period during which the remaining 25% (and other actors) can upgrade. After the waiting period, the network will upgrade to 2MB blocks with 99% of the network or more (I believe) on a single chain. 2 The bitcoin price will go up and confidence will be restored as we’ve bought ourselves some time on the scaling issue. 3 After this, bitcoin will be in an era of multiple competing teams and nodes, which will accelerate bitcoin’s protocol development. Core, Classic, or any other team can propose upgrades to the protocol that everyone in the industry can vote on. Future protocol upgrades will be decided by consensus using the blockchain (longest valid chain wins), instead of consensus using industry meetings and letters. If we follow this model, we can have bitcoin’s protocol upgraded to 2MB by April 2016, and keep right on moving to additional upgrades (such as Core’s excellent SegWit work). If you are a bitcoin miner or business owner, please join the existing companies who have upgraded to BitcoinClassic to help bitcoin scale, and don’t delay based on a promise of what may come in the future. Thank you. So obviously there is no done deal. |
|
|
|
Pretty interesting read. Warning a bit of unnecessary explicit language. His case could be an argument for or against needing leadership, depending on how you read it. The more I read, the more I was convinced there needs to be leadership. I think he may be confusing control and leadership though. My biggest problem is that he eludes to excluding the opinions of non-coders..... ..... ..... Bitcoin Has No Leader, and Maybe That's a Good ThingBrian Hoffman is the CEO of OB1, the startup overseeing development of blockchain-based marketplace project OpenBazaar, and a former lead associate at Booz Allen Hamilton.
In this opinion piece, Hoffman discusses the ongoing debate over how bitcoin should be scaled, and why the network's lack of leadership may be both a blessing and a curse.Very interesting article. The followings caught my attention: "I’m absolutely convinced that part of the issue is that bitcoin as an idea is so revolutionary and controversial that it not only attracts the smartest and the brightest, it also appeals to scam artists, idiots, politicians, economists and anyone with an Internet connection who thinks they have something to say."
"I would argue it's an approach that's ultimately destined to fail."
"We constantly get brilliant engineering solutions, but it’s the social problems that hurt us the most."Unless Bitcoin can develop leadership structure, it surely won't live up to its full potential. Drafting guidelines for community participation as suggested in the article, is a good start, but will not solve the problem of division within the community. Like the Abraham Lincoln speech goes, "A house divided against itself cannot stand." DNotes on the other hand is a model for the balance needed between strong leadership and community involvement. Where there is strong leadership, inspiring followers to work as a team towards the attainment of common goals that are mutually beneficial to everyone, the outcomes are consistently more predictable and productive. A lot more can be accomplished with very little. Once it gained sufficient momentum the network effect can quickly dominate. On the other hand, the leaderless model is likely to gain larger participation and network effect earlier, but far less productive; more political and chaotic. Hence, as the author correctly pointed out, " We constantly get brilliant engineering solutions, but it’s the social problems that hurt us the most." |
|
|
|
Pretty interesting read. Warning a bit of unnecessary explicit language. His case could be an argument for or against needing leadership, depending on how you read it. The more I read, the more I was convinced there needs to be leadership. I think he may be confusing control and leadership though. My biggest problem is that he eludes to excluding the opinions of non-coders..... ..... ..... Bitcoin Has No Leader, and Maybe That's a Good ThingBrian Hoffman is the CEO of OB1, the startup overseeing development of blockchain-based marketplace project OpenBazaar, and a former lead associate at Booz Allen Hamilton.
In this opinion piece, Hoffman discusses the ongoing debate over how bitcoin should be scaled, and why the network's lack of leadership may be both a blessing and a curse.Very interesting article. The followings caught my attention: "I’m absolutely convinced that part of the issue is that bitcoin as an idea is so revolutionary and controversial that it not only attracts the smartest and the brightest, it also appeals to scam artists, idiots, politicians, economists and anyone with an Internet connection who thinks they have something to say."
"I would argue it's an approach that's ultimately destined to fail."
"We constantly get brilliant engineering solutions, but it’s the social problems that hurt us the most." |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
