Can someone answer the questions posed by Sam?
Ken refused to engage further!
Cool Ken says
Blockchain technology (not just bitcoin) is effectively taking us back to a world closer to barter.
It circumnavigates the governments and corporations that add comparatively little value to transactions (particularly those across international boundaries), and take money from them unnecessarily.
It allows capital raising for entrepreneurs without the unnecessary administration of IPOs, and access to scale far beyond Kickstarter like campaigns.
It ensures that those who pursue creative endeavors (musicians, artists, etc.) don't get fucked by corporate intermediaries who leave them only pennies on the dollar.
This is a major disruption. I expect that large institutions and governments will try to put every obstacle in its path, and most of the simpleton minded population will approach it with mainstream cynicism. Just like in the last 20 years, information was democratized from Britannica to Wikipedia, and Amazon's transparency thinned profit margins for Walmart; the global racket that is fiat currency today will be transformed in the near future. Ultimately, high profits are a leading indicator of market inefficiency.
Shady Sam says:
Wait, how do governments and corporations “take money from transactions?”
If I write you a check for $10k, there is no gov’t or corporate fee. You get $10k.
If I hand you $10 in cash, there is no gov’t or corporate fee. You get $10k.
This claim makes no sense to me.
Blockchain is simple a distributed electronic ledger, correct?
How does an electronic accounting ledger make “capital raising for entrepreneurs” any easier/different?
If I want to give you $500k for your capital raising, I just write you a check.
This claim makes no sense to me.
How exactly does an electronic accounting ledger “ensure that (musicians, artists, etc.) don't get fucked by corporate intermediaries” ?
I don’t see any connection whatsoever with medium of payment having anything to do with the terms of a contact.
Atlantic Records can just as easily screw their artist by paying them via Bitcoin or via traditional methods.
If the artist does not like the terms of the deal, he walks and finds a better way to distribute his media (as many have done, like releasing albums/singles directly online)
This claim makes no sense to me.
It seems to me that the simpletons are the ones drinking the Kool Aid with a bunch of tin foil conspiracy half-truth hyperbole. LOL.
