|
[reposting here for beginners] Hope this is useful for folks who's new to the forum. If there's qns pls feel free to comment and I will try to ans to the best of my ability. IF not there's always other members.
Blockchain 1.0 --> Currency.
The original development of distributed ledger technology, a.k.a. DLT resulted in the first cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, where decentralised records of financial transactions and arguably, store of values on the blockchain enabled peer-to-peer transfer of payments (or more broadly, assets). These developments sometimes brought with them tagline benefits such as fast,trustless and anonimity, which were viewed as a means of getting around centralised financial institutions like banks (yups, those blood-sucking buggers).
Blockchain 2.0 --> Smart Contracts.
Personally, I think these are the start of the true blockchain revolution. If you can code a gazillion if/else statements into the blockchain, and enable trustless execution of certain actions given certain conditions, you can basically automate or dis-intermediate away A LOT of the inefficiencies buried in our current financial, corporate, social and government administrative systems. Notably, the marriage of blockchain tech and Smart Contracts meant that it is almost technically impossible to hack the latter.
Blockchain 3.0 --> Decentralised Apps (Dapps for short).
The commonly touted benefits of Dapps include their avoidance of centralised infrastructure and hence any central point of failure. The code and its executive basically live on huge peer-to-peer blockchain networks (my mobile, Peter’s home desktop, that Russian guy’s mini-server etc.). Note that all these are behind the scenes, the frontend user platform can take any form and be designed for any purpose. For instance, the recent cryptokitty craze (hey, i’m a owner of digital cats too!) was one of the more (initially) popular Dapps that came along, despite it seemingly clogging up the ethereum network at some point.
Blockchain 4.0 --> self-sustaining blockchain ecosystems? inter-operable sidechains/ blockchains etc.
Personally I think while some projects tout themselves as pushing the blockchain 4.0 frontier, we've yet to truly see a inter-operable blockchain platform that works? Let me know if u feel otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm relatively new here to btctalk, having only been a member for a few months.
But I enjoy the environment quite a bit, whether it's the chance to see discussions on new icos, views on altcoin movements, or do a lil' bit of bounties for some coffee money (yes I do bounties too, mostly for projects that I agree with, and I honestly see nothing wrong with that, as long as no excessive shilling is conducted).
To the community and the forum platform I give my sincere thanks.
I also honestly think that the new Merit system has its merits (pun intended); won't go too much into it here since there's many other posts discussing the pros and cons of the new system. But observationally, the 'velocity' of smerit movements is too slow to be healthy for the system as a whole. Under the current system, smerits are almost a 'currency' of sorts by itself. They have 'value' attributed to them by their influence over the act of 'ranking up', and while disallowed, there are still black markets for merit trading (I suspect). The realisation that smerits have value leads members to excessively hoard them for 'future use', since as as a normal user, I have no certainty whatsoever over my future stream of 'merit' income, even if i strive to improve the quality of my posts.
While theymos obviously considered this problem and came up with the solution of future merit sources, I (respectfully) wish to point out that this alone is likely insufficient. To a certain extent, this is akin to the idea of trusted nodes in blockchain design, and hence have the same associated issues. Trusted nodes with too much influence run the risk of corrupting the system; too few trusted nodes run the risk of insufficient 'processing' power to fulfill the platforms' usual smerit generation needs.
On this note I would like to suggest an additional complementary system of sorts, where say every member has a certain weekly quota of X 'like' credits, which will expire at the end of the week if unused (and reallocated the next again). Because of the (i) expiration and (ii) weekly quota refresh tagged to such credits, members are much less likely to hoard them. Different member tiers could possibly be allocated different amounts of like credits, if higher-ranked members are presumably believed to be 'better' judges of content, on average.
Now when I see a decent post, 'decent' in the sense that I enjoyed the content, whether it was a random comment that made me laugh, some tip i found useful, etc., but where it was not sufficiently educational/high-quality for me to part with my hard-earned smerits. I can award the post some 'like' points instead. Like points can then be convertible to merits using a sufficiently high ratio, which can be slowly calibrated over time to ensure robustness of the overall rank system. To avoid abuse (e.g., likes trading -_-") etc., a micro cap could also be set to the number of likes (maybe just 1?) a user can award certain posts, so the volume of interested readers who 'like' the posts matter more than having 1 high-ranking member come and award large numbers of 'likes'.
I sincerely believe having some form of complementary channel for rank-up will help ease some of the tension between old/new members simply due to the challenge of ranking up and will prove beneficial for btctalk over the longer-term. For comments or views, pls.
[P.s., not sure if someone else has suggested a similar system, pardon me if there has been. No intention of copying the idea. The suggestion came in part from the fact that I read chinese novels, and platforms like qidian.com always have a dual system of more precious 'monthly-votes' (only allocated if u top-up membership fees etc.) and periodic-refresh-able 'recommendation votes', to ensure sufficient dynamism at all levels of the community.]
|
|
|
|
|
Hope this is useful for folks who's new to the forum. If there's qns pls feel free to comment and I will try to ans to the best of my ability. IF not there's always other members.
Blockchain 1.0 --> Currency.
The original development of distributed ledger technology, a.k.a. DLT resulted in the first cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin, where decentralised records of financial transactions and arguably, store of values on the blockchain enabled peer-to-peer transfer of payments (or more broadly, assets). These developments sometimes brought with them tagline benefits such as fast,trustless and anonimity, which were viewed as a means of getting around centralised financial institutions like banks (yups, those blood-sucking buggers).
Blockchain 2.0 --> Smart Contracts.
Personally, I think these are the start of the true blockchain revolution. If you can code a gazillion if/else statements into the blockchain, and enable trustless execution of certain actions given certain conditions, you can basically automate or dis-intermediate away A LOT of the inefficiencies buried in our current financial, corporate, social and government administrative systems. Notably, the marriage of blockchain tech and Smart Contracts meant that it is almost technically impossible to hack the latter.
Blockchain 3.0 --> Decentralised Apps (Dapps for short).
The commonly touted benefits of Dapps include their avoidance of centralised infrastructure and hence any central point of failure. The code and its executive basically live on huge peer-to-peer blockchain networks (my mobile, Peter’s home desktop, that Russian guy’s mini-server etc.). Note that all these are behind the scenes, the frontend user platform can take any form and be designed for any purpose. For instance, the recent cryptokitty craze (hey, i’m a owner of digital cats too!) was one of the more (initially) popular Dapps that came along, despite it seemingly clogging up the ethereum network at some point.
Blockchain 4.0 --> self-sustaining blockchain ecosystems? inter-operable sidechains/ blockchains etc.
Personally I think while some projects tout themselves as pushing the blockchain 4.0 frontier, we've yet to truly see a inter-operable blockchain platform that works? Let me know if u feel otherwise.
|
|
|
|
|
due to the nature of my portfolio (50% long-term, 30% ico, 20% speculative), i hold the same 50/30/20 ratio in ledger nano (cold wallet), mew (for icos) and exchanges (trading) respectively.
There's always a risk to put ur coins on exchanges. For one, i recently lost ard 5k from coins held on coinsmarkets when it went down (not sure if it's ever coming back), solely because i was too lazy to stake my own coins and coinsmarkets had a coins staking feature.
Always prepare for the worst. So u wun regret.
|
|
|
|
|
go for platform coins. i wld say eth and ada are still good bets. I like dragonchain too, although i dun hold any.
If u like something functional/interesting, spankchain has a working, product haha
|
|
|
|
|
my broad belief is that coins like ethereum or other utility or platform tokens will outperform coins aiming to be pure medium of exchange or store of value tokens, partly due to tougher crackdown by regulators on the latter. go eth!
|
|
|
|
|
icos are a good space to invest in still i feel, but scams abound. go look up some material for how to identify credible projects. And make sure not to send coins from any exchanges. be careful when be chatted up by "fake" admins in telegram or get routed to fake ico sites.
|
|
|
|
|
despite various criticisms, i actually prefer bittrex and binance the most
hitbtc are bloodsuckers, can't trust an exchange which doesn't give its users sufficient decimal points to place orders on.
|
|
|
|
|
i honestly think there're too many hard forks going ard. they create unnecessary volatility ard coin value and splits existing developer resources for the coin's development. Why do it unless there is a fundamental difference in vision? if u do have such a strong belief in the functional features u want to create, why not just create a new coin?
|
|
|
|
|
have u ever noticed that on coinmarketcap, if u look at the 1hr price change, on certain days, and getting more frequent in fact, the changes are highly correlated?
If coins trend down, they tend to trend down TOGETHER, despite each coin's news/developments for that day. hence the term, sea of red. While I know this is common for more traditional asset classes such as equities too, i'm quite certain the correlation is not so direct.
Any views on this? mass bot manipulation by whales? high systemic risk cos ppl view crypto as a whole, given that's it's a whole new asset class exposed to the same set of risks?
|
|
|
|
|
To fall to, and rise with, greed is human. Many people associate the rise of cryptocurrency's value with human greed. I, for one, started rearing digital cats (cryptokitties) in the sole hope that they will rise in value and I'll get decent compensation for figuring out lines of genetic codes.
I think after stumbling onto Etherjack, I can say that no game or dapp or ico in crypto history has taken the idea of human greed and expressed it in as innovative a manner as the project has. (No, bitconnect doesn't count, it's just a scam.)
So what's the big deal? Etherjack is essentially a digital, crypto jackpot. The ICO collects a certain sum of eth, 333 to be exact, peanuts in the world of ICO collections. BUT, the fun starts there. Players bid sequentially, using a defined amount of ethereum or native Jack tokens. I bid, u bid, she bids. A certain timeout duration is allocated after each bid. If someone else bids during the duration, the clock restarts. IF NO ONE ELSE BIDS during the period, the jackpot goes to the last bidder!
I'm personally interested in this project just to see how human rationality/irrationality will interact with the game design. Can't wait for the party to start.
|
|
|
|
|
Just signed up for the Bitcointalk Avatar and Signature campaign! all requirements done, thanks!
|
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
