DNotes 2.0 - Staking, CRISP Interest, DNotes Pay

[wiser]

This is a great article explaining what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are, and why they are valuable, why they might turn out to not be valuable. It's probably one of the best nontechnical explanations for the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon I've read in a long time. I learned a lot reading it.

https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80

Thanks wiser, great article! I read every word, but I think there are many points of interest missing from the equation, here are just a few.

Participation. People love to participate in things. Cryptocurrency, ICO's, all of the successful projects are built around the fact that everyone can participate and benefit from that participation. People will even sacrifice some functionality or ease of use for the ability to truly participate. This is why youtube is wildly successful, but it is starting to go the other way where only certain people and ideas can fully participate.

Incorruptible governance and issuance, relative to consensus. Like the issuance of money everywhere in the world, it is confusing and often corrupted to the point where many people suffer and just a few benefit. This is playing out all over the world and virtually no currency is immune, only to what extent. The incorruptible part is a little more complicated, just like bitcoin and all the forks. You may create your own fork, but unless you get other people to agree to use, as well as convince everyone not to use the original, the original will continue, or exists in it's own world despite the incompatible new rule set. The great thing is, you don't have to even agree with consensus, and start your own little consensus.

Centralized integration. All of the considerations in article exclude the posibility for a third party to take advantage of the best of the benefits of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The participation effect, the incorruptible governance and issuance, among many other things, and solve the other issues externally.

We understand the problems raised in the article, among others, and came to the realization that there is a best of both worlds by mixing the awesome decentralized world with the necessary centralized world and it all started with the company and shared stake concept.

Those are some really great points you raise, and you're right, the article misses them, which I can understand why. To include everything going on would necessitate writing an entire book! The points you make, especially the part about participation, I've had an intuitive sense about those things but hadn't been able to articulate them like you just did. I guess that's why I'm involved. I've mentioned many times before how with cryptocurrencies, I'm able to participate in financial adventures that were previously only reserved for the rich, such as lending to margin traders, investing in micro-loans, etc. So yes, participation is a big thing for me.

What the article did well for me, was clearly lay out what cryptocurrencies' original purpose, value, and function really is--to essentially fuel decentralized applications. I hadn't really wrapped my head around that particular concept before.

[TimMarsh]

This is a great article explaining what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are, and why they are valuable, why they might turn out to not be valuable. It's probably one of the best nontechnical explanations for the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon I've read in a long time. I learned a lot reading it.

https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80

Thanks wiser, great article! I read every word, but I think there are many points of interest missing from the equation, here are just a few.

Participation. People love to participate in things. Cryptocurrency, ICO's, all of the successful projects are built around the fact that everyone can participate and benefit from that participation. People will even sacrifice some functionality or ease of use for the ability to truly participate. This is why youtube is wildly successful, but it is starting to go the other way where only certain people and ideas can fully participate.

Incorruptible governance and issuance, relative to consensus. Like the issuance of money everywhere in the world, it is confusing and often corrupted to the point where many people suffer and just a few benefit. This is playing out all over the world and virtually no currency is immune, only to what extent. The incorruptible part is a little more complicated, just like bitcoin and all the forks. You may create your own fork, but unless you get other people to agree to use, as well as convince everyone not to use the original, the original will continue, or exists in it's own world despite the incompatible new rule set. The great thing is, you don't have to even agree with consensus, and start your own little consensus.

Centralized integration. All of the considerations in article exclude the posibility for a third party to take advantage of the best of the benefits of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The participation effect, the incorruptible governance and issuance, among many other things, and solve the other issues externally.

We understand the problems raised in the article, among others, and came to the realization that there is a best of both worlds by mixing the awesome decentralized world with the necessary centralized world and it all started with the company and shared stake concept.

These are good points, and I'd like to add what I noticed missing or disagreed with:

From the article:
"In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive"

The other day I suddenly needed to buy flights from London to Australia, and my partner discovered an excellent deal that saved us about US$400. But the airline's website failed to accept Visa payment because our bank's link to the 'Verified by Visa' service was not working properly. So we tried multiple cards, transferred money between us to do so, and even tried other websites selling the flight. All failed. Fortunately my Cambodian bank was able to instantly create and use a virtual Master Card via the mobile app and make the payment. But the failure of the centralised system nearly cost us $400.

So I would add reliability to the list in favour of cryptocurrency. The system, depending on independent nodes never goes down. Banks post messages saying that mobile payments will be unavailable on [date-time] due to system maintenance on a regular basis.

Due to my profession, I often receive payments by wire transfer. This typically costs me between US$30–40. Compare that to the average bitcoin transaction fee of around $5 which is much cheaper. There are other payment options that use a percentage system for calculating fees and this gets very expensive for higher values. And when the same processing is required regardless of risk or value, there is no excuse for percentage based charges.

And my experience of bank transfers is 3–5 business days, wire transfer is more than 24 hours, and bitcoin is about ten minutes. So in my opinion, bitcoin wins on speed as well.

So the basis of the comparison appears to be seriously flawed. Then the opinion about future functionality of distributed applications might also be flawed. Currently the majority of nodes supporting blockchains are based on Proof of Work. And this was necessary at the beginning of bitcoin as the network was finding its feet. But Proof of Stake has proven to be successful and much more efficient. But POS does not do an effective job of leveraging excess processing power or unwanted storage space. That is where we're at today. That is not where we will be in the near future.

There is no reason why a hybrid POW/POS system can't be implemented that also uses unwanted storage space and network capacity. There is also no reason for the POW processing to be duplicated across multiple nodes. Imagine a node setup where the user can set their min-max processor usage, cap their Internet data, and define usable storage. Then each node could be working as a cluster of artificial-neural-networks contributing unique processing with some redundancy to an AI-SAAS. They could then earn tokens based on resource contribution. And those tokens would be worth money because customers have to purchase and spend them for AI services. This massive and unique distributed processing power would be far superior and much more stable than any centralised server options. So claiming that decentralised apps will always be less powerful might be a bit near-sighted.

After saying all that, I still think it was a well written and informative article. And I really appreciated how value was identified and discussed.

[wiser]

This is a great article explaining what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are, and why they are valuable, why they might turn out to not be valuable. It's probably one of the best nontechnical explanations for the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon I've read in a long time. I learned a lot reading it.

https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80

Thanks wiser, great article! I read every word, but I think there are many points of interest missing from the equation, here are just a few.

Participation. People love to participate in things. Cryptocurrency, ICO's, all of the successful projects are built around the fact that everyone can participate and benefit from that participation. People will even sacrifice some functionality or ease of use for the ability to truly participate. This is why youtube is wildly successful, but it is starting to go the other way where only certain people and ideas can fully participate.

Incorruptible governance and issuance, relative to consensus. Like the issuance of money everywhere in the world, it is confusing and often corrupted to the point where many people suffer and just a few benefit. This is playing out all over the world and virtually no currency is immune, only to what extent. The incorruptible part is a little more complicated, just like bitcoin and all the forks. You may create your own fork, but unless you get other people to agree to use, as well as convince everyone not to use the original, the original will continue, or exists in it's own world despite the incompatible new rule set. The great thing is, you don't have to even agree with consensus, and start your own little consensus.

Centralized integration. All of the considerations in article exclude the posibility for a third party to take advantage of the best of the benefits of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The participation effect, the incorruptible governance and issuance, among many other things, and solve the other issues externally.

We understand the problems raised in the article, among others, and came to the realization that there is a best of both worlds by mixing the awesome decentralized world with the necessary centralized world and it all started with the company and shared stake concept.

These are good points, and I'd like to add what I noticed missing or disagreed with:

From the article:
"In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive"

The other day I suddenly needed to buy flights from London to Australia, and my partner discovered an excellent deal that saved us about US$400. But the airline's website failed to accept Visa payment because our bank's link to the 'Verified by Visa' service was not working properly. So we tried multiple cards, transferred money between us to do so, and even tried other websites selling the flight. All failed. Fortunately my Cambodian bank was able to instantly create and use a virtual Master Card via the mobile app and make the payment. But the failure of the centralised system nearly cost us $400.

So I would add reliability to the list in favour of cryptocurrency. The system, depending on independent nodes never goes down. Banks post messages saying that mobile payments will be unavailable on [date-time] due to system maintenance on a regular basis.

Due to my profession, I often receive payments by wire transfer. This typically costs me between US$30–40. Compare that to the average bitcoin transaction fee of around $5 which is much cheaper. There are other payment options that use a percentage system for calculating fees and this gets very expensive for higher values. And when the same processing is required regardless of risk or value, there is no excuse for percentage based charges.

And my experience of bank transfers is 3–5 business days, wire transfer is more than 24 hours, and bitcoin is about ten minutes. So in my opinion, bitcoin wins on speed as well.

So the basis of the comparison appears to be seriously flawed. Then the opinion about future functionality of distributed applications might also be flawed. Currently the majority of nodes supporting blockchains are based on Proof of Work. And this was necessary at the beginning of bitcoin as the network was finding its feet. But Proof of Stake has proven to be successful and much more efficient. But POS does not do an effective job of leveraging excess processing power or unwanted storage space. That is where we're at today. That is not where we will be in the near future.

There is no reason why a hybrid POW/POS system can't be implemented that also uses unwanted storage space and network capacity. There is also no reason for the POW processing to be duplicated across multiple nodes. Imagine a node setup where the user can set their min-max processor usage, cap their Internet data, and define usable storage. Then each node could be working as a cluster of artificial-neural-networks contributing unique processing with some redundancy to an AI-SAAS. They could then earn tokens based on resource contribution. And those tokens would be worth money because customers have to purchase and spend them for AI services. This massive and unique distributed processing power would be far superior and much more stable than any centralised server options. So claiming that decentralised apps will always be less powerful might be a bit near-sighted.

After saying all that, I still think it was a well written and informative article. And I really appreciated how value was identified and discussed.

Those are great points too. I think the reason the banks are slow and expensive when it comes to wire transfers (especially to customers) is in part because they can. Up to now they have not had any competition so no need to refine those processes. But when it comes to taking my money, they are fast. It takes seconds to process a credit card payment, for example. In other words, I think wire transfers, ACH deposits, and all other kinds of bank account to bank account transfers could be done faster and cheaper using the current infrastructure. And now with the block chain entering the scene as a competitor they will. At that point we'll be able to more objectively evaluate which system is truly better for those metrics.

You're right about system downtime, though that's not entirely unheard of in block chain based payment systems

[DNotes]

This is a great article explaining what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are, and why they are valuable, why they might turn out to not be valuable. It's probably one of the best nontechnical explanations for the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon I've read in a long time. I learned a lot reading it.

https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80

Thanks wiser, great article! I read every word, but I think there are many points of interest missing from the equation, here are just a few.

Participation. People love to participate in things. Cryptocurrency, ICO's, all of the successful projects are built around the fact that everyone can participate and benefit from that participation. People will even sacrifice some functionality or ease of use for the ability to truly participate. This is why youtube is wildly successful, but it is starting to go the other way where only certain people and ideas can fully participate.

Incorruptible governance and issuance, relative to consensus. Like the issuance of money everywhere in the world, it is confusing and often corrupted to the point where many people suffer and just a few benefit. This is playing out all over the world and virtually no currency is immune, only to what extent. The incorruptible part is a little more complicated, just like bitcoin and all the forks. You may create your own fork, but unless you get other people to agree to use, as well as convince everyone not to use the original, the original will continue, or exists in it's own world despite the incompatible new rule set. The great thing is, you don't have to even agree with consensus, and start your own little consensus.

Centralized integration. All of the considerations in article exclude the posibility for a third party to take advantage of the best of the benefits of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The participation effect, the incorruptible governance and issuance, among many other things, and solve the other issues externally.

We understand the problems raised in the article, among others, and came to the realization that there is a best of both worlds by mixing the awesome decentralized world with the necessary centralized world and it all started with the company and shared stake concept.

These are good points, and I'd like to add what I noticed missing or disagreed with:

From the article:
"In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive"

The other day I suddenly needed to buy flights from London to Australia, and my partner discovered an excellent deal that saved us about US$400. But the airline's website failed to accept Visa payment because our bank's link to the 'Verified by Visa' service was not working properly. So we tried multiple cards, transferred money between us to do so, and even tried other websites selling the flight. All failed. Fortunately my Cambodian bank was able to instantly create and use a virtual Master Card via the mobile app and make the payment. But the failure of the centralised system nearly cost us $400.

So I would add reliability to the list in favour of cryptocurrency. The system, depending on independent nodes never goes down. Banks post messages saying that mobile payments will be unavailable on [date-time] due to system maintenance on a regular basis.

Due to my profession, I often receive payments by wire transfer. This typically costs me between US$30–40. Compare that to the average bitcoin transaction fee of around $5 which is much cheaper. There are other payment options that use a percentage system for calculating fees and this gets very expensive for higher values. And when the same processing is required regardless of risk or value, there is no excuse for percentage based charges.

And my experience of bank transfers is 3–5 business days, wire transfer is more than 24 hours, and bitcoin is about ten minutes. So in my opinion, bitcoin wins on speed as well.

So the basis of the comparison appears to be seriously flawed. Then the opinion about future functionality of distributed applications might also be flawed. Currently the majority of nodes supporting blockchains are based on Proof of Work. And this was necessary at the beginning of bitcoin as the network was finding its feet. But Proof of Stake has proven to be successful and much more efficient. But POS does not do an effective job of leveraging excess processing power or unwanted storage space. That is where we're at today. That is not where we will be in the near future.

There is no reason why a hybrid POW/POS system can't be implemented that also uses unwanted storage space and network capacity. There is also no reason for the POW processing to be duplicated across multiple nodes. Imagine a node setup where the user can set their min-max processor usage, cap their Internet data, and define usable storage. Then each node could be working as a cluster of artificial-neural-networks contributing unique processing with some redundancy to an AI-SAAS. They could then earn tokens based on resource contribution. And those tokens would be worth money because customers have to purchase and spend them for AI services. This massive and unique distributed processing power would be far superior and much more stable than any centralised server options. So claiming that decentralised apps will always be less powerful might be a bit near-sighted.

After saying all that, I still think it was a well written and informative article. And I really appreciated how value was identified and discussed.

Those are great points too. I think the reason the banks are slow and expensive when it comes to wire transfers (especially to customers) is in part because they can. Up to now they have not had any competition so no need to refine those processes. But when it comes to taking my money, they are fast. It takes seconds to process a credit card payment, for example. In other words, I think wire transfers, ACH deposits, and all other kinds of bank account to bank account transfers could be done faster and cheaper using the current infrastructure. And now with the block chain entering the scene as a competitor they will. At that point we'll be able to more objectively evaluate which system is truly better for those metrics.

You're right about system downtime, though that's not entirely unheard of in block chain based payment systems

Great discussion! It's going to be all about options and choices, who can meet the needs of the market. There will be a lot of competition in the near future and that is good for everyone.

[TwoCorn]

I’ve championed this coin for so long. Done videos, tweets etc etc.

I visit here from time to time, and see these very long well worded comments, and responses.. which is nice.

What about DNOTES? What about 2.0?

Very close to selling and moving on.

I would highly recommend against selling at this point. It would only guarantee and lock in a loss that might very well be reversed upon the release of 2.0 in a few months. If you don't absolutely need that money right now, what harm could holding a few more months be? If you sell and the price does go back up, you will regret it. Be patient.

[Sonatix]

http://httpS://dnotesvault.com/ or http://dnotesvault.com/ true link, or both?

[MiningHabit]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

[DNotes]

http://httpS://dnotesvault.com/ or http://dnotesvault.com/ true link, or both?

Welcome Sonatix, you can use https://dnotesvault.com/. Either way it will direct you to https when you attempt to login.

[DCEBrief]

CBOE To Enable Bitcoin Futures Trading December 10

https://dcebrief.com/cboe-to-enable-bitcoin-futures-trading-december-10/

[DNotes]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Thanks MiningHabit, we agree, for cryptocurrency to reach mass acceptance it has to appeal to everyone. The VC panel at the world funding summit also addressed this issue, and one of the key contributors mentioned was a natural aversion to high risk, that has stuck with me. I believe our approach will eventually help to reduce some of that risk, as well as the impact we are having the industry.

[Dyna]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Thanks MiningHabit, we agree, for cryptocurrency to reach mass acceptance it has to appeal to everyone. The VC panel at the world funding summit also addressed this issue, and one of the key contributors mentioned was a natural aversion to high risk, that has stuck with me. I believe our approach will eventually help to reduce some of that risk, as well as the impact we are having the industry.

Thank you MiningHabit. Quite a rare find, since mainstream media almost never cover the subject of gender imbalance in our industry. CryptoMoms has done the most in our attempts to encourage and assist women to participate in the crypto currency arena. We strongly believe that mass acceptance of digital currency cannot be achieved without the full participation of women since they control more than 50% of the global purchasing power.

One of our projects in the second half of 2018 is to rebrand CryptoMoms. It will be helpful if our community can start coming up with suggestions and a wish list.
The article reported that, “Some female cryptocurrency investors also see blockchain technology as a solution to common financial problems that women face, such as raising money to start a tech business.’

DNotes Global, Inc. will be very active in assisting entrepreneurs to raise capital for growth-stage companies using our business consulting arm – NextGenVC. We are looking forward to a very busy year.

[wiser]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Weirdly enough I've never had any major issues with being a woman in this industry. It's very possible that it was fortuitous that I picked a gender-neutral moniker for this forum. I've had lots of people assume I was male (calling me "mate," referring to me as "he," etc.) and I haven't made a point to correct them. I've also never yet attended any sort of actual event in this industry where real people get together. I guess I love the part where you don't have to dress up and go anywhere, but can comfortably do your trading, forum chatting, networking, etc., all from the comfort of your own home, and often with a baby on the lap. In that sense, this is probably the most mom-friendly industry I've ever worked in!

[TimMarsh]

This is a great article explaining what Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies are, and why they are valuable, why they might turn out to not be valuable. It's probably one of the best nontechnical explanations for the entire cryptocurrency phenomenon I've read in a long time. I learned a lot reading it.

https://blog.chain.com/a-letter-to-jamie-dimon-de89d417cb80

Thanks wiser, great article! I read every word, but I think there are many points of interest missing from the equation, here are just a few.

Participation. People love to participate in things. Cryptocurrency, ICO's, all of the successful projects are built around the fact that everyone can participate and benefit from that participation. People will even sacrifice some functionality or ease of use for the ability to truly participate. This is why youtube is wildly successful, but it is starting to go the other way where only certain people and ideas can fully participate.

Incorruptible governance and issuance, relative to consensus. Like the issuance of money everywhere in the world, it is confusing and often corrupted to the point where many people suffer and just a few benefit. This is playing out all over the world and virtually no currency is immune, only to what extent. The incorruptible part is a little more complicated, just like bitcoin and all the forks. You may create your own fork, but unless you get other people to agree to use, as well as convince everyone not to use the original, the original will continue, or exists in it's own world despite the incompatible new rule set. The great thing is, you don't have to even agree with consensus, and start your own little consensus.

Centralized integration. All of the considerations in article exclude the posibility for a third party to take advantage of the best of the benefits of cryptocurrency and blockchain technology. The participation effect, the incorruptible governance and issuance, among many other things, and solve the other issues externally.

We understand the problems raised in the article, among others, and came to the realization that there is a best of both worlds by mixing the awesome decentralized world with the necessary centralized world and it all started with the company and shared stake concept.

These are good points, and I'd like to add what I noticed missing or disagreed with:

From the article:
"In fact, on almost every dimension, decentralized services are worse than their centralized counterparts:
They are slower
They are more expensive"

The other day I suddenly needed to buy flights from London to Australia, and my partner discovered an excellent deal that saved us about US$400. But the airline's website failed to accept Visa payment because our bank's link to the 'Verified by Visa' service was not working properly. So we tried multiple cards, transferred money between us to do so, and even tried other websites selling the flight. All failed. Fortunately my Cambodian bank was able to instantly create and use a virtual Master Card via the mobile app and make the payment. But the failure of the centralised system nearly cost us $400.

So I would add reliability to the list in favour of cryptocurrency. The system, depending on independent nodes never goes down. Banks post messages saying that mobile payments will be unavailable on [date-time] due to system maintenance on a regular basis.

Due to my profession, I often receive payments by wire transfer. This typically costs me between US$30–40. Compare that to the average bitcoin transaction fee of around $5 which is much cheaper. There are other payment options that use a percentage system for calculating fees and this gets very expensive for higher values. And when the same processing is required regardless of risk or value, there is no excuse for percentage based charges.

And my experience of bank transfers is 3–5 business days, wire transfer is more than 24 hours, and bitcoin is about ten minutes. So in my opinion, bitcoin wins on speed as well.

So the basis of the comparison appears to be seriously flawed. Then the opinion about future functionality of distributed applications might also be flawed. Currently the majority of nodes supporting blockchains are based on Proof of Work. And this was necessary at the beginning of bitcoin as the network was finding its feet. But Proof of Stake has proven to be successful and much more efficient. But POS does not do an effective job of leveraging excess processing power or unwanted storage space. That is where we're at today. That is not where we will be in the near future.

There is no reason why a hybrid POW/POS system can't be implemented that also uses unwanted storage space and network capacity. There is also no reason for the POW processing to be duplicated across multiple nodes. Imagine a node setup where the user can set their min-max processor usage, cap their Internet data, and define usable storage. Then each node could be working as a cluster of artificial-neural-networks contributing unique processing with some redundancy to an AI-SAAS. They could then earn tokens based on resource contribution. And those tokens would be worth money because customers have to purchase and spend them for AI services. This massive and unique distributed processing power would be far superior and much more stable than any centralised server options. So claiming that decentralised apps will always be less powerful might be a bit near-sighted.

After saying all that, I still think it was a well written and informative article. And I really appreciated how value was identified and discussed.

Those are great points too. I think the reason the banks are slow and expensive when it comes to wire transfers (especially to customers) is in part because they can. Up to now they have not had any competition so no need to refine those processes. But when it comes to taking my money, they are fast. It takes seconds to process a credit card payment, for example. In other words, I think wire transfers, ACH deposits, and all other kinds of bank account to bank account transfers could be done faster and cheaper using the current infrastructure. And now with the block chain entering the scene as a competitor they will. At that point we'll be able to more objectively evaluate which system is truly better for those metrics.

You're right about system downtime, though that's not entirely unheard of in block chain based payment systems

Great discussion! It's going to be all about options and choices, who can meet the needs of the market. There will be a lot of competition in the near future and that is good for everyone.

I think you're absolutely right wiser, about the reason for banks offering poor transaction speeds and high costs for money transfers being due to a lack of competition. But something stinks here.

There are at least 23,000 different banks in the world.
https://accuity.com/product/bankers-almanac-counterparty-kyc/

But not a single bank can break ranks and offer cheap inter-bank transfers because the receiving banks must all agree to make transfers with this rogue bank. It looks like collusion from here. And it is understandable that when all banks need to agree on a complex amount of protocols and security checks to transfer money, the easiest thing for them to find common ground on is keeping the price high.

As for the speed, my guess is that you are right in saying that competition will push them through their technology barriers. But I also recognise those barriers could be quite high. I was running the mainframes that supported a finance company under ANZ bank in Australia in the late 1980s. When we had to deal with the introduction of daylight savings time, some of the code running time related functions like 'interest calculations' and 'inter-branch synchronisation' had to be reviewed. I was amazed at the amount of fortran, cobal, and other languages being used that even then were considered old legacy languages. It was explained to me that the risks involved with a bug in new software were higher than the cost of maintaining the old software, so it just gets left alone.

I am glad that I wasn't around when they were all panicking about the Y2K bug, because even back then there was discussion about how to refactor variables to accommodate the extra date size, and the two camps 'spit the year off the date' and 'split the time off the date' could never agree on how to bind the data without using non-existent space.

So now, when I'm in a bank and the teller stabs some keys and then I see her eyes glaze over for the five seconds it takes for her computer to respond with the correct data, I imagine the hardware running virtual 8086 machines crawling through cobol and fortran routines that still haven't been updated. Speeding that system up so that it can securely handle instant inter-bank transfers might be more work than justifies the cost. And maybe they won't feel the pressure until it is too late and the public have moved to a better way of doing things.

[wiser]

I think you're absolutely right wiser, about the reason for banks offering poor transaction speeds and high costs for money transfers being due to a lack of competition. But something stinks here.

There are at least 23,000 different banks in the world.
https://accuity.com/product/bankers-almanac-counterparty-kyc/

But not a single bank can break ranks and offer cheap inter-bank transfers because the receiving banks must all agree to make transfers with this rogue bank. It looks like collusion from here. And it is understandable that when all banks need to agree on a complex amount of protocols and security checks to transfer money, the easiest thing for them to find common ground on is keeping the price high.

As for the speed, my guess is that you are right in saying that competition will push them through their technology barriers. But I also recognise those barriers could be quite high. I was running the mainframes that supported a finance company under ANZ bank in Australia in the late 1980s. When we had to deal with the introduction of daylight savings time, some of the code running time related functions like 'interest calculations' and 'inter-branch synchronisation' had to be reviewed. I was amazed at the amount of fortran, cobal, and other languages being used that even then were considered old legacy languages. It was explained to me that the risks involved with a bug in new software were higher than the cost of maintaining the old software, so it just gets left alone.

I am glad that I wasn't around when they were all panicking about the Y2K bug, because even back then there was discussion about how to refactor variables to accommodate the extra date size, and the two camps 'spit the year off the date' and 'split the time off the date' could never agree on how to bind the data without using non-existent space.

So now, when I'm in a bank and the teller stabs some keys and then I see her eyes glaze over for the five seconds it takes for her computer to respond with the correct data, I imagine the hardware running virtual 8086 machines crawling through cobol and fortran routines that still haven't been updated. Speeding that system up so that it can securely handle instant inter-bank transfers might be more work than justifies the cost. And maybe they won't feel the pressure until it is too late and the public have moved to a better way of doing things.

That's very interesting. That reminds me I recently heard that bank technology is archaic. I was watching this video explaining the upcoming NEM Catapult wallet and it mentioned that banks use a messaging system called SWIFT to communicate with each other that is 40 or 50 years old. And anything that wants to interact with banks has to be compatible with that messaging system. Like you said, it's easier to maintain than to upgrade to something that would work a whole lot better.

So if block chain technology can adapt better than that, it very well might give the banks a run for their money...

[DNotes]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Weirdly enough I've never had any major issues with being a woman in this industry. It's very possible that it was fortuitous that I picked a gender-neutral moniker for this forum. I've had lots of people assume I was male (calling me "mate," referring to me as "he," etc.) and I haven't made a point to correct them. I've also never yet attended any sort of actual event in this industry where real people get together. I guess I love the part where you don't have to dress up and go anywhere, but can comfortably do your trading, forum chatting, networking, etc., all from the comfort of your own home, and often with a baby on the lap. In that sense, this is probably the most mom-friendly industry I've ever worked in!

Thank you wiser, it is good for us to hear from your perspective. It helps us to understand the problem better. I can certainly see where you are coming from in that it really doesn't matter what gender you are, but how can we make it more enticing to participate at this still early stage of cryptocurrency and get involved?

[Dyna]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Weirdly enough I've never had any major issues with being a woman in this industry. It's very possible that it was fortuitous that I picked a gender-neutral moniker for this forum. I've had lots of people assume I was male (calling me "mate," referring to me as "he," etc.) and I haven't made a point to correct them. I've also never yet attended any sort of actual event in this industry where real people get together. I guess I love the part where you don't have to dress up and go anywhere, but can comfortably do your trading, forum chatting, networking, etc., all from the comfort of your own home, and often with a baby on the lap. In that sense, this is probably the most mom-friendly industry I've ever worked in!

Thank you wiser, it is good for us to hear from your perspective. It helps us to understand the problem better. I can certainly see where you are coming from in that it really doesn't matter what gender you are, but how can we make it more enticing to participate at this still early stage of cryptocurrency and get involved?

Thank you all for keeping the discussion going. Our banking systems, global payment and settlement networks, debit and credit cards, and financial systems are outdated and must change to keep up with advancing technologies. Because there is so much money and power involved, it could take a decade for a robust system to finally gain mass acceptance. This is the biggest problem for our industry to solve and the prize is huge.

We recognize what is at stake – right off the gate and have been working on multiple solutions to solve “the problem”. If you like to know how we plan to be a significant player, you will need more than a “10 second elevator pitch”. You might want to start from HERE: http://dnotescoin.com/

and continue HERE:  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1924858.0

That will just get you started. Yes, we have created a lot of educational materials over almost 4 years, explaining why we are doing what we are doing. Our industry is going wild – fast and furious, and very noisy. Obviously, not that many people have heard us, or for that matter, understand what DNotes is all about.

2018 will be a very busy and exciting year for us with the launch of DNotes 2.0 and a major funding campaign for DNotes Global, Inc. most likely using Reg A+ Mini IPO under Title IV Tier 2 to raise up to $50 million worldwide. I am very excited and committed to make things happen.

We will be needing a lot of help from our community. The number one priority on our list is a few great story tellers who can really articulate the DNotes philosophy and story in a concise and compelling manner. How everything that we have been doing are strategically linked and designed to scale rapidly worldwide. It is an integrated ecosystem designed to ultimately gain mass acceptance of DNotes as a medium of exchange in global commerce.

There will be a lot of opportunities for those who like to get more involved. We are expanding our core team. You don’t have to be a coder. It is more important that you are passionate to our cause and subscribe to our long-term vision of making DNotes accessible to everyone worldwide to participate; even if they are not wealthy.
You may reach us at: contact@dnotescoin.com. Do not use bitcointalk PM. I have been have problems getting my messages, recently.

[Chase]

Wow - One bitcoin in Canada is currently $17,000! I would give anything for one hour of time travel. 

I have an early New Year's prediction. 2018 will be the year some sort of fundamental analysis comes to cryptocurrency. Institutional investors may be enjoying the money they are making trading, shorting, hedging, etc, but I believe they will need a lot more proof of value before they put big money into any cryptocurrency that will become part of one of their investment funds.

[TeeGee]

Wow - One bitcoin in Canada is currently $17,000! I would give anything for one hour of time travel. 

I have an early New Year's prediction. 2018 will be the year some sort of fundamental analysis comes to cryptocurrency. Institutional investors may be enjoying the money they are making trading, shorting, hedging, etc, but I believe they will need a lot more proof of value before they put big money into any cryptocurrency that will become part of one of their investment funds.

I know, this is absolutely incredible to watch. Very indicative of the value people are placing on cryptocurrency. It may not just be that cryptocurrencies are appreciating, but that confidence in fiat regimes is also debastabilizing.

Bitcoin now sells for 20k NZ dollars...

[TimMarsh]

https://moneyish.com/ish/all-the-reasons-why-women-can-be-the-future-of-cryptocurrency/

Really nice article on the gender problem in Crypto. Particularly relevant to this board, given CryptoMoms.

Weirdly enough I've never had any major issues with being a woman in this industry. It's very possible that it was fortuitous that I picked a gender-neutral moniker for this forum. I've had lots of people assume I was male (calling me "mate," referring to me as "he," etc.) and I haven't made a point to correct them. I've also never yet attended any sort of actual event in this industry where real people get together. I guess I love the part where you don't have to dress up and go anywhere, but can comfortably do your trading, forum chatting, networking, etc., all from the comfort of your own home, and often with a baby on the lap. In that sense, this is probably the most mom-friendly industry I've ever worked in!

Thanks wiser for your perspective. The only time I consider gender when interacting online is when I have to choose between a male or female pronoun. I really believe English would benefit from a gender-neutral second-person pair of pronouns for objective and subjective roles. I've never been able to guess gender by the quality or informativeness of posts. I think if I've got any chance of guessing anything, it is age / maturity. And those two don't always correspond.

What I do believe in very strongly is a term I call "social filters". This is where the nature of some activity or gathering attracts some people, and repels others. Inevitably the group will share some common traits, behaviours, interests, skills, and often culture or beliefs. The narrower the group or activity is, the stronger the social filter, and the more defined these similarities are. My experience is that when such a group only meets physically, and where the natural filter has a strong gender bias, the minority gender becomes less interested in attending and this multiplies the effect over time until the group is almost exclusively one gender. I think this is because gender is instantly visible in most cases.

For aspects that are not instantly visible, such as belief systems, the social filter effect remains the same, but there is no multiplying effect of people leaving because they are the minority. So in a group of poets that regularly met for years, conversation might one day reveal that the majority are Buddhists, and there are only a few agnostic or Christian members. Had people been wearing clothes to signify their religion, I believe over the preceding few years, those other religious minorities would have reduced in or completely left the group.

This is one of the things that I really like about the Internet. It enables people to participate in forums without providing any of the information points used to discriminate whether that be a conscious or subconscious process. I am never bothered when I discover someone has chosen a moniker or avatar that completely misrepresents their gender or other personal information. And because of this, I ignore as best I can information that is implied by monikers and avatars.

This information neutrality that comes automatically with online activity is why I get confused with comments about gender exclusion or bias in online communities. I understand that higher profile figures may find it harder to suppress information like their gender, but by then, aren't they already entrenched in the community? So my feeling, naive as it likely is, thinks that the imbalance of gender participation in cryptocurrency is caused by what attracts genders to the industry. Certainly some of this might be the cascade effect of men in the industry talking shop with other men more than women, and less women currently in a position to attract more women by talking shop. But I also feel there is truth to the theories that the feeder industries of fintech and software developers are already heavily gender biased. Maybe even all of those male taxi drivers are having some effect, though in my opinion they chat regardless of gender.

So while I'd like to see every cryptocurrency forum be as welcoming as the DNotes thread, I think a lot more is required to obtain the gender balance the future of cryptocurrency needs. Where any industry is underrepresented by a gender, I believe there is a lot of value in establishing and supporting minority-gender networking opportunities and professional organisations. I believe these opportunities already exist in both the fintech and software professions. So my recommendation is for the cryptocurrency community to actively reach out to these minority-gender groups and offer information sessions and presentations on the cryptocurrency industry. This could be incredibly effective if the numbers are close to what I suspect.

Lets assume for the sake of simple mathematics that 1 in 20 people in fintech and software are women. And lets say 1 in 1,000 people in these industries are as familiar with cryptocurrency as people would be after attending three presentations on the subject. Then let's say that half of the women in these industries are members of a gender-minority networking group and attend cryptocurrency information sessions. Lets also assume that the combined industry members totals 1,000,000 people. Then, after three cryptocurrency sessions I think the following formula would be correct:

Before:
Men in industry =  950,000
Women in industry = 50,000

Men understand CC =  950
Women understand CC = 50

After:
Men understand CC =                     950
Women understand CC = 50,000 x 50% = 25,000

Suddenly after providing information sessions to the minority group, it outnumbers the previous majority by 25:1

Certainly my figures are not at all accurate, but this does represent how the principle of targeting the support groups for minorities can have a significant effect when the information being provided is generally not well understood.

[DCEBrief]

Bitcoin Price Surges Past $14K

https://dcebrief.com/bitcoin-price-surges-past-14k/