Good deal, we'll go with that one. It certainly has a bit more brand recognition.

The problem with thinking the world will never change and/or that your piece of the $$ pie is forever protected by the government:


9 Life-Changing Inventions the Experts Said Would Never Work

1. The Electric Lightbulb

"Everyone acquainted with the subject will recognize it as a conspicuous failure."
Henry Morton, president of the Stevens Institute of Technology, on Edison’s light bulb, 1880.

2. The A/C

"Fooling around with alternating current is just a waste of time. Nobody will use it, ever."
Thomas Edison, 1889.

3. The Personal Computer

"We have reached the limits of what is possible with computers."
John Von Neumann, 1949

4. The Microchip

"But what… is it good for?"
An engineer at the Advanced Computing Systems Division of IBM, commenting on the microchip in 1968.

5. Data Transmission

"Transmission of documents via telephone wires is possible in principle, but the apparatus required is so expensive that it will never become a practical proposition."
Dennis Gabor, Hungarian-British physicist, 1962.

6. Online Shopping

"Remote shopping, while entirely feasible, will flop – because women like to get out of the house, like to handle merchandise, like to be able to change their minds."
TIME, 1966.

7. The Automobile

"The ordinary “horseless carriage” is at present a luxury for the wealthy; and although its price will probably fall in the future, it will never, of course, come into as common use as the bicycle."
Literary Digest, 1899.

8. The Television

"While theoretically and technically television may be feasible, commercially and financially it is an impossibility, a development of which we need waste little time dreaming."
Lee DeForest, American radio pioneer and inventor of the vacuum tube,1926.

9. Possibility

"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
Supposedly said by Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. Office of Patents, 1899 – except he probably didn’t. So the last word goes to actor and humorist Peter Ustinov:

"If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can’t be done."

http://ecosalon.com/9_life_changing_inventions_the_experts_said_would_never_work/

R-J-F, your thoughts on the future are great. I really like the idea of being able to transfer from the Vault with my wallet. I also like your term, "the People's Coin" and I'm seeing that attitude reflected in the simplicity and features in the new wallet.

I designed a lot of databases for a particular company which would inevitably discover the power of the new solution and their minds would explode with ideas for added features. I was slow to learn, but eventually realised that I need to structure my data as flexibly as possible and rely on my queries to do all the work. I ended up viewing the process of building a new database like building a little beach shack, but laying the foundations for a high rise resort underneath it.

I think you see this in your recommendation that now is "the perfect time to at least build in the basic code to accomplish these functions even if you are not ready to take this kind of stuff live." And I think you are absolutely right. Getting the basics set up in a manner that enables other functions to be plugged in, other data sources to be accessed, and unimagined tools to be built would be the best approach.

I see DNotes as really thinking ahead like this by the steps they are taking to move the code into C# and it seems that they're doing a lot of tidying up along the way. If so, this should make adding new features in the future easier and more secure.

Screenshots from DNotes 2.0:

You're absolutely right TeeGee, that governments should enact the will of the people. I'm just struggling to find an instance where corporations wanted one thing, and the people wanted the opposite and then the government legislated in favour of the people's will. You'd think that in democracies that would happen all of the time. But apparently not.

Instead I think that we'll see the old financial sector lobbying their governments to act against cryptocurrencies and governments doing what they're asked. Some governments will recognise the economic benefits of being a technological leader in the field, I'm looking at you Tallinn, and push back against the financial sector and their lobby groups. Other governments will recognise the economic benefits of their population's increased wealth so will regulate to stop losses through fraudulent ICOs while encouraging the cryptocurrency industry in general. I'm thinking of Japan as an example of this.

But neither of these positions may have a significant effect on the industry over the long term. Where there is a will there is a way. Frequently the chip to override Sony Playstation security was available for purchase before the box with that security update was on the market. Whatever actions governments take to limit the use or accessibility of cryptocurrencies, enterprising groups will design work-arounds and solutions that welcome those citizen's trade.

I see a country banning the use of cryptocurrencies as about as effective as a country banning the uploading of images onto the Internet. And the more they squeeze the blacker the market gets. If on the other hand, governments rewarded citizens for declaring their wallet addresses, that same market would become a lot less black.

So I'm enjoying watching all of this unfold in your good company, and see some unpredictable chaos ahead like a crazy pattern on a blanket. But this blanket is settling down over a landscape of valleys well worn by history. The prohibition of alcohol, the Tulip bubble, the dotcom bubble, the introduction of bank cards and ATM machines. All of these reflect human behaviour and are good predictors of both government and public response.

Thanks for the thorough answer Tim and I hope you're right. The only problem I see with online trust levels is that they can be faked (or unduly raised) to give the appearance of trustworthiness. I will also give the centralized services this, it is exponentially easier to match buyers and sellers, but on the other hand it's good for people to have multiple options so they can choose a method that best suits their needs.

Atomic Swap Between Bitcoin and Ethereum (on a test net)

So it looks like the Altcoin Exchange team have successfully swapped BTC for ETH in an atomic swap. From my understanding of the process, this is a direct swap enabled and enforced by code without any requirement for a third party.

https://news.bitcoin.com/altcoin-exchange-performs-first-atomic-swap-between-bitcoin-and-ethereum/

If this holds up to scrutiny, survives the testing process, and is brought mainstream, it is a game changer in the cryptocurrency industry.
"The Altcoin Exchange team transferred 0.12345 ETH for 0.12345 BTC using an on-chain open source process. Altcoin Exchange plans to launch the project’s Github repository this Tuesday, the company’s CEO Andrew Gazdecki told news.Bitcoin.com"

When China told their exchanges to shut down, they also demanded that their files be sent in to the government on compact discs. I'm romantic enough to be disappointed that the cryptocurrency files weren't demanded on punch cards. But even so, exchangeless swaps mean that personal details stored by the exchange when you login, aren't linked to your swap.

It also has the ability to hamper or completely obstruct other attempts to regulate aspects of the cryptocurrency industry. If you can swap bitcoin for ethereum without an exchange, then you can invest in ICOs from a country that is trying to block them by closing exchanges.

Exchanges will still be required for match making purposes. But because that is all they might be doing, setting up and running an exchange would be much cheaper, and not require users to trust them, or even have an account with them. It would be more like a search engine for open offers.

But ultimately, I believe the most significant effect will be increased public trust in cryptocurrencies. Many people who are concerned about investing in cryptocurrency worry about news of bitcoin being stolen. But stealing a cryptocurrency is much harder than stealing cash or property. The news of stolen bitcoins comes from exchanges, and many believe they are inside jobs. If exchanges give way to atomic swaps made simple by building the functionality into wallets, we won't be hearing any more news about hacked exchanges. Trust in cryptocurrencies will rise dramatically.

I was certain I'd never leave my money in an exchange because of all the negative press. But when I read that DNotes Vault held an equivalent duplicate balance in cold storage, and I looked up that address and found the DNotes sitting there, I decided to trust them. And while I understand that a DNotes Global Inc run exchange is on the road map, if atomic swaps remove the need for this, I don't see it harming their long-term vision of making DNotes a cryptocurrency for daily use. It would just mean someone solved a problem along that journey.

I'd be interested to know if provisions to enable atomic swaps have been designed into DNotes2.0

The DNotesVault is unique to DNotes ecosystem, which will make the swap process very easy -- most cryptocurrencies need to employ third parties to facilitate the process on exchanges.

Networking with others in our industry, and from the Venture Capital world is crucial, and will make DNotes better known for when we soon begin to rapidly scale our project.

I'm looking very forward to seeing the videos from your conference, Alan.

Alan Yong supposed to be appearing at a gathering where he is speaking, anyone has an idea of the date? Thank you

Transaction Fees and Savings Plans

I just read an article about another project to buy bitcoin with the small change left over from fiat transactions. My first thought was that it would never work because the transaction fees in bitcoin haven't been small change since May 2016. But after reading the article, I knew that they were proposing to add up the small change in the background until its value totalled $10, and then buy bitcoin with that.

https://qz.com/1095292/dust-lets-you-buy-bitcoin-with-spare-change-with-monzo/

Totalling it up to $10 and then taking out a chunk sort of defeats the purpose of squirrelling away the little bits when they aren't noticed. But the real concern here is that even in $10 chunks, bitcoin is not a good investment option. In 2017 bitcoin transaction fees averaged around $3 according to:
https://bitinfocharts.com/comparison/bitcoin-transactionfees.html

So before you even start to make a profit on your investment, your $7 worth of bitcoin must increase to $10 worth of value just to make back the transaction fee. So with bitcoin currently at $4,400, the investor would have to wait for bitcoin to be worth $6,285 before they are back to where they were if they had left that change in their pocket. 

From what I could tell by looking at the DNotes blockchain, there is no fee charged with a transaction. This means that you're not taking two steps backwards when trying to take a step forwards. I'm sure the idea of putting away small change into DNotes will get even more attractive once DNotes2.0 enables the investment and staking rewards.

DNotes on Google Trends

After looking at Google Trends to see how searches for bitcoin might indicate deeper social issues, I had to checkout what DNotes looked like.

Over the last five years, DNotes has done a great job of consistently being searched. The biggest spike was in the week 4th–10th June this year. This is possibly due to stories published by BITCOINIST and NEWSBTC sharing the news about plans for DNotes2.0

http://www.newsbtc.com/2017/06/06/whats-new-dnotes-2-0-upgrade-bitcointalk-forum/
http://bitcoinist.com/dnotes-prepares-introduce-2-0-upgrade/


But what I found most interesting was how much DNotes is searched by South Korea. It is the number one source and scored 100. This was true over three years, and was also true for the past seven days. To verify if this was significant, I inspected Ethereum for the last 7 days and found South Korea was the 43rd strongest source and scored 15. Bitcoin in South Korea was 51st strongest with a score of 15. Litecoin was a stronger source at 34th with a score of 28. But none of these compare to DNotes being number 1 with score of 100. And this was the same for 2015, and 2016. Before that, South Korea doesn't appear as a source.

So then I tried some of the coins listed on Coinmarketcap near DNotes. Creditbit (0,0); Bitcore (8th/22, 47); Bitcrystals (0,0); TheGCCcoin (0,0)
Of these, only Bitcore was being searched at all by South Korea, and it was not a significant source region.

So it seems clear to me that DNotes has caught the attention of South Korea. I'd be interested to know why that is. I looked at the history over the last three years of searches from South Korea and found four significant dates: April 19, May 11, and June 8 and 10 all in 2017. But I only found one Korean article on June 10. It is a short article noting a huge jump in the price of DNotes.
https://www.clien.net/service/board/cm_vcoin/10841363

https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&q=DNotes

I am becoming seriously concerned at the general level of ignorance surrounding blockchain, its benefits, capabilities, and shortcomings. This article clearly states what is required of its solution:

"That requires relevant agencies and health care entities to share data as quickly and efficiently as possible. During any actual outbreak of infectious disease, there is little time to waste. Unfortunately, the current data-sharing systems do not allow for the secure and speedy input and sharing of information needed to respond in the most effective and time-efficient manner possible."

I think it is well overdue for someone to create a comparison table between blockchain and other ledger and database solutions. This would illustrate that blockchain is not a good fit for handling a disease outbreak.

• Blockchain is very very slow. Writing a record to the blockchain can take more than ten minutes, and much longer if suddenly thousands of records need to be written at once.
• Blockchain requires specialised software, which in an emergency situation might take between hours and days to setup to the point of running a full node.
• Blockchain does not allow records to be deleted. It does not allow passwords to be changed, or access to be revoked. Someone from the CDC could be fired for misconduct, but because they have the private keys, all CDC health records are permanently available to this person.
• Blockchain does not handle multiple tables or manage referential relationships. It does not enable data to be procedurally updated. So if it turns out that all body temperatures entered by some region were in Fahrenheit, not Celsius, those records must remain wrong.

But this is only scratching the surface of why blockchain is a dreadful fit for the CDC. And it is bizarre that they are looking in that direction when there are so many off-the-shelf proven solutions to provide a fast, flexible, powerful, full functioning database with tiered levels of access. A MySQL database, with both desktop and mobile webpage access would be instantly usable by any authorised person in the world with no software installation or training required. 

Alan, you so often speak my thoughts for me. And I completely agree that education is the solution. I tend to think education is the solution to almost all problems. That is probably because I think the vast majority of people are good, and want the best for others as well as themselves. And I see most problems in the world coming from bad decisions, rather than bad intentions. For me the best solution to avoid bad decisions is learning how to think, and having all the relevant information. Hence, education is the foundation of all long term solutions.

After education has done its work, of course I see systems as the ultimate structure to build on the foundation of education. That way, we don't have to think through the same problems over again, and we can experiment and tweak our decisions in a framework that yields meaningful and repeatable results. I am glad DNotes Global Inc. puts such effort into education and is sharing knowledge through the Four Pillars to Business Success program. I respect people for their intentions, but I admire them for their results. You're definitely moving quickly in the right direction.

It probably isn't even true that FBI is spending more resources investigating crypto money laundering. It would just be too irresponsible and absurd. The total capitalisation of all cryptocurrencies is an insignificant fraction of all money laundering according to the IMF. So yes, I agree that the statement is likely to be politically motivated.



This does not surprise me. Those with power like to retain it, so are always in favour of stability and maintaining the status quo. So when a new form of money comes along, the basis of their power faces the threat of disruptive technology. What does surprise me is Christine Lagarde's position on it. Of course, getting to where she is I expected her to be savvy and have her finger on the fintech pulse. But to publicly promote a reasonable or even positive image about the future of cryptocurrencies was unexpected.

I would have expected the IMF to be more reactive and want to put out the cryptocurrency fire, before it burned away their position of power. But, maybe they are smarter than that. Change is inevitable, and if you are fortunate enough to see it coming, then it makes sense to spend your energy re-positioning yourself rather than fighting it. Just how the IMF might consolidate their power in a world where both fiat and cryptocurrency are traded in similar proportions I don't know. And maybe they don't know either, but are at least trying to move in the right direction.


And related to both of these is the crack down on fraudulent ICOs. I agree that it is certainly a positive thing, and feel proud to be contributing to a group that recognise we all can be fools and that does not mean we don't deserve help or even protection where it is warranted. But it is interesting that the SEC is choosing to minimise damage early. It would have surprised my cynical side less if the damage was allowed to get so far out of control, that future government attempts to limit and control the use of cryptocurrencies would be seen by the public as well overdue, rather than government over-reach.

So while China plays its hand, Korea follows in its way, and Japan registers exchanges making the Eastern approach to cryptocurrencies seem divided, it looks like the Western attitude is swinging slowly around to somewhere between tolerant and positive.

Really disappointing to hold these coins long-term, and miss a swap because you can't read every thread all the time...

I agree, it is a great article.

Notice how she never mentions anything about central bankers/governments clamping down on, or banning digital currencies, but rather advises them to be "open to fresh ideas and new demands, as economies evolve”. Some of her statements are so close to what has been stated by you and the rest of the DNotes team, it almost looks like she may be on our side. 

Digital currencies are "too volatile, too risky, too energy intensive and because the underlying technologies are not yet scalable central bankers should not ignore the technology or underestimate it." This is really interesting, and I wonder how closely the energy intensiveness of POW is being watched by large institutions? Do they feel any of the current cryptocurrencies are potentially scalable? One can be sure that DNotes 2.0, in addressing all these issues, will be studied very carefully.

There will always be greed and foolishness in investing from people who should know better. The really sad part in my opinion, is that the majority of people don't have the basic knowledge to even grasp the concept of due diligence, how to accomplish it, or why it is necessary. You are right in improving math skills, and everyone should have the opportunity to become financially literate (and literate), but understanding the complexities of real estate investment 'schemes' of any kind are likely out of the realm of comprehension for most of them, with or without education. Not offering some form of protection for these people leaves me feeling like we are no better than some of the world's wealthiest 1%, that got to where they are on the backs of innocent people.

Reuters etc are reporting that South Korea are banning ICOs.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-southkorea-bitcoin/south-korea-bans-raising-money-through-initial-coin-offerings-idUSKCN1C408N

I have to admit that when I see stories like this one, where a company is making an "open, source, secure smartphone and PC", to leverage the advantages of blockchain technologies, I cringe. I remember when I first heard rumours that Google were developing an operating system for mobile phones potentially named 'Android', I was really excited. I had recognised back then the pie chart for mobile phone development costs shifting so that the software slice was becoming much more expensive than the hardware slice. And the duplication of effort was astounding. But I also knew that you'd need to be a huge company, and independent of phone manufacturers to succeed in such a big, bold project.

So yes, I was excited. I looked into how they were going to run a virtual machine which could then be configured to sit on a variety of hardware layers. I knew very little of the negotiations that would have to go on with manufacturers. But I'd followed the gaming console industry for a long time, and knew that they'd have to take great care to get a programming community on board. Google pulled it off. I was impressed. Then as with all good open source, a community of OS developers sprung up around it with Cyanogen.

The mobile phone industry has changed a lot since then. Nokia S60 operating system, Blackberry, Windows, and others have tried to compete and invested almost as much as an ICO windfall into the process. But it takes a lot more than dollars to put a wedge between the Android and iOS tug of war. I don't see Sirin Labs pulling off a fully independent hardware/software combo that will compete. But what bothers me most is my cynicism. I don't even believe they think they can do it, and feel like they've just added the 'blockchain' stamp to a popular product so that it gets a ticket on the blockchain bandwagon, so that they can ride it all the way to the blockchain gravy train.

Don't get me wrong, there is huge potential in blockchain technology, if you want an immutable distributed ledger that is excessively data heavy, slow to write to, and has redundancy duplicated at a thousand times any level that could possibly be justified. Just as a thought exercise, imagine if Twitter decided to decentralise its system using blockchain technology. There are about 500 million tweets sent per day, compared to about 200,000 bitcoin transactions per day. That's 2,500 times the number of transactions done in bitcoin over the same time period. I don't even know where to begin calculating the potential size of the twitter blockchain, but I know you'd never run a node from your mobile phone.

But this doesn't stop ICOs popping up that want to run a free, secure, private, instant messaging app on blockchain technology. And it is hard for me to feel like my messages are private when permanently stored on a public blockchain, where the leakage of a private key would mean my every message is there for all to read forever. So when I see what to me looks like an inappropriate application of blockchain technology pop up, it looks no different than some bold claim that they're going to reinvent Photoshop by building it on the blockchain. Or they're going to take on Youtube head to head by storing all video content on the blockchain. I can't imagine how these businesses can even pretend to believe what they are saying is true.

That's why I like what DNotes are doing. They're 'laser focused' on using blockchain for what it is best at. No fancy gimmicks or impossible claims. And their big bold plan is to create something that is more functional than many aspects of our global financial system, and benefits people in all of those societies that lack access to financial services. Sure, it is a huge undertaking, but it is both feasible and necessary.