Fullscale Mainstream Crypto Adoption, What to Do To Achieve This? Share Views...

[Jedabucol]

 Blockchain is a open source information platform, but it doesn't gives social feedback and support with it, many projects are based on supporting each other with blockchain project.

[1714836834]

1714836834

[1714836834]

1714836834

[first_user111]

1. Through our decentralized government, we create a system to checkmate projects and reduce the predators to a large extent.

I think you refer to the amount of scammers and other shady services. But I struggle to understand how you plan to "checkmate" them with a "decentralized government"? Bitcoin's blockchain cannot be governed this way, so I think you refer to the Bitcoin community. And yes, there are mechanisms in place to combat scams, for example here in Bitcointalk.

The basic problem is - greed. If they can hope for a decent profit supporting a shady Bitcoin service, ICO or altcoin, many people will do it.

2. Some project developers should maybe consider creating a truly non-technical social hub whereby people can come and associate, benefit from the rewarding nature of the blockchain, and more importantly find relevant information on everything blockchain. Am currently working on one though.

I agree. In theory, we already have a "non-technical social hub" with Bitcointalk. Most users here have no technical background. But it has some usability flaws - for example, it's almost unusable on mobile without heavy tweaking -  and the software is terribly outdated. Reddit, and to some extent also Steemit have become alternative hubs, but both have their own flaws, as have Facebook/WhatsApp/Telegram groups (no one has achieved to be a "hub").

3. People should basically see the blockchain in two primary forms as I highlighted in the second and third paragraph above, as a transfer of value and as a place where they can see other hosted projects and choose for themselves where to invest their earnings through adequate research and understanding of those projects, and this is only made possible if my number two solution above existed.

To be able to "choose", people must be well informed. Here we have an additional challenge. Most services that try to "rank" or "review" cryptocurrencies are either terribly biased, very badly structured (like the "Project Development" forum here at Bitcointalk) or only based on very basic indicators like the flawed "market cap".

4. It is high time projects start thinking of bringing mainstream's daily activities to the blockchain, by creating more securities on the blockchain than mere tokens. Start-up projects and companies should be educated enough to see the blockchain as a perfect spot for the sales of company shares, that's where the new blockchain revolution should focus on.

I think the problem here are legal challenges. And there is a factor which probably makes this currently unviable for most companies: Volatility of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. In 2017 the $20K high of the Bitcoin price was almost 30 times(!) higher than the $730 low. Most altcoins are much more volatile. How could you really ensure investors can measure a price of a share if the main market is a volatile cryptocurrency?

Volatility is a hen-and-egg problem: if there were more companies that used Bitcoin and blockchains to use as a base technology for their shares, there was some "real value" attached to the blockchains and thus the volatility could gradually sink. So it would be desirable more companies took the risk, maybe only basing a small part of their shares on blockchain assets.

Well, and there are two more problems you didn't mention:
- Usability - there are already protocols and tools that make payments much easier (Payment Protocol etc.) but they are not universally used.
- Scalability - the transaction density problem has not been solved. Projects which have no problem with some centralization, like EOS, can achieve similar throughputs than totally centralized solutions. But Bitcoin's innovation was to decentralize money, not to re-centralize it with another paradigm. But perhaps this problem is close to be solved, as LN is evolving and I heard also that this year there was a theoretical breakthrough with sidechains.
- the energy waste problem. The hopes here are 1) a breakthrough in alternative consensus algorithms like PoS or PoC or 2) a cheap mining infrastructure based on renewable energies.

I think you refer to the amount of scammers and other shady services. But I struggle to understand how you plan to "checkmate" them with a "decentralized government"? Bitcoin's blockchain cannot be governed this way, so I think you refer to the Bitcoin community. And yes, there are mechanisms in place to combat scams, for example here in Bitcointalk.

Checkmating can only be coded as a community consensus. Though it will be an almost impossible mission, but how about having a decentralized blockchain policing system whereby all newly launched projects will have its discussion portal and the token may be powered by another service that generates wealth to reward users for discussing about projects on the platform. Like a research hub whereby all new projects can be talked about for general communal review of the project, and as such any person who really loves investing in ICOs should first of all branch there to talk about his intended token purchase. Having a centralized system, project reviews may be biased. Even with this suggestion of mine, it seems an impossible mission to combat scam projects. Another way though is through KYC. We can make it a communal thing that for anyone to buy from any ICO the team has to be properly verified and accountable to an authority.

I agree. In theory, we already have a "non-technical social hub" with Bitcointalk. Most users here have no technical background. But it has some usability flaws - for example, it's almost unusable on mobile without heavy tweaking -  and the software is terribly outdated. Reddit, and to some extent also Steemit have become alternative hubs, but both have their own flaws, as have Facebook/WhatsApp/Telegram groups (no one has achieved to be a "hub").

Yes I agree to a large extent too. Bitcointalk is an awesome community where hundreds of thousands of crypto enthusiasts comes to reason together. However the usability and the user-interface design has to be really modified to suit the mainstream guys. Compatibility in terms of the site's responsiveness on mobile devices is also very important. Also we need people with other unique social services, not just talk about everything crypto, like facebook, about people and for the people, a kind of hub like that is what I mean.

To be able to "choose", people must be well informed. Here we have an additional challenge. Most services that try to "rank" or "review" cryptocurrencies are either terribly biased, very badly structured (like the "Project Development" forum here at Bitcointalk) or only based on very basic indicators like the flawed "market cap".

Projects has to be ranked in a decentralized model, in so many ways without human influence. I am a programmer, I can come up with more than 10 different ways a ranking system can be decentralized without being abused. I agree with you very much on this, but there can still be a solution for this one.

I think the problem here are legal challenges. And there is a factor which probably makes this currently unviable for most companies: Volatility of Bitcoin and cryptocurrencies in general. In 2017 the $20K high of the Bitcoin price was almost 30 times(!) higher than the $730 low. Most altcoins are much more volatile. How could you really ensure investors can measure a price of a share if the main market is a volatile cryptocurrency?

Volatility is a hen-and-egg problem: if there were more companies that used Bitcoin and blockchains to use as a base technology for their shares, there was some "real value" attached to the blockchains and thus the volatility could gradually sink. So it would be desirable more companies took the risk, maybe only basing a small part of their shares on blockchain assets.

The volatility of the cryptos are a very big issue, but for companies to be tokenized on the blockchain, their token value is not based on the btc price but entirely based on the companies physical market capitalization, if their revenue goes up, the speculation will definitely result in a price increase on the token. The only reason why the tokens are registered on the blockchain is just to have a medium by which the shares can be sold at any point in time and liquidated by any user, but people will hardly sell their tokens especially when they know how much dividends the tokens fetches them. I see this as very viable, we just need to make companies understand that their company value is never based on any other asset's price.

[first_user111]

Blockchain is a open source information platform, but it doesn't gives social feedback and support with it, many projects are based on supporting each other with blockchain project.

Please explain further, how do you mean bitcoin as an information platform and why does it need social feedback and support?

[MainIbem]

There are lots of improvement going on to make sure cryptocurrency and blockchain become mass-adopted.

Most of ICOs, the starting point of generating cyptocurrency starts here in bitcointalk.org. You will agree with me that there are measures recently adopted to wardoff scams, spammers, fraudsters, etc. The introduction of the merit system has gone a long way to reduce scale up of accounts. Evil fee is another introduction that tend to restrict people creating multiple accounts or using a certain location as a account creation hub. Most managers have introduce KYC. This also have gone a long way to reduce fraudsters and how funds are channeled.

Recently, various governments have introduced regulations. Such regulations are aimed at protecting citizens of those countries from fraudulent activities on the cryptocurrency space. These are just a few of what is being done.

So there is so much being done towards the expected fullscale mainstream crypto adoption.

[first_user111]

There are lots of improvement going on to make sure cryptocurrency and blockchain become mass-adopted.

Most of ICOs, the starting point of generating cyptocurrency starts here in bitcointalk.org. You will agree with me that there are measures recently adopted to wardoff scams, spammers, fraudsters, etc. The introduction of the merit system has gone a long way to reduce scale up of accounts. Evil fee is another introduction that tend to restrict people creating multiple accounts or using a certain location as a account creation hub. Most managers have introduce KYC. This also have gone a long way to reduce fraudsters and how funds are channeled.

Recently, various governments have introduced regulations. Such regulations are aimed at protecting citizens of those countries from fraudulent activities on the cryptocurrency space. These are just a few of what is being done.

So there is so much being done towards the expected fullscale mainstream crypto adoption.

Yeah I know a lot of work is currently ongoing to help combat scams to a large extent

[d5000]

Checkmating can only be coded as a community consensus. Though it will be an almost impossible mission, but how about having a decentralized blockchain policing system whereby all newly launched projects will have its discussion portal and the token may be powered by another service that generates wealth to reward users for discussing about projects on the platform.

You could use a service like Blockstack to build such a decentralized community hub. The problem, however, still would persist, it would become even more difficult to combat scams, because the blockchain treats every opinion in the same way. Downvoting, like at Steemit, could be an alternative, but it can and will be abused. No variant is perfect ...

Another way though is through KYC. We can make it a communal thing that for anyone to buy from any ICO the team has to be properly verified and accountable to an authority.

And who decides which authority is valid? If it's a "community vote", then also the scammers can vote authorities they like.

IMO, more important than such "censorship mechanisms" is education - I've thought, for example, about a wiki about known crypto scam techniques and methods how to determine the risk of a project.

Also we need people with other unique social services, not just talk about everything crypto, like facebook, about people and for the people, a kind of hub like that is what I mean.

There are some forum software packages (like Friendica) that could, in theory, connect the hubs at different platforms - e.g. a Friendica-based Bitcointalk could communicate with Facebook and Twitter groups. I don't know if the new forum software is intended to provide a similar feature. It would be cool but would require LOT of work as social media platforms change their APIs all the time ...

The volatility of the cryptos are a very big issue, but for companies to be tokenized on the blockchain, their token value is not based on the btc price but entirely based on the companies physical market capitalization,

This would be the ideal situation, but it would require a similar transparency policy by the companies than in those who are listed at regular stock exchanges. In this case, I think it's possible. But at the current situation, we see what happens to almost all tokens representing a "company" out there at Ethereum and other similar platforms: they largely follow the Bitcoin price.

[first_user111]

Checkmating can only be coded as a community consensus. Though it will be an almost impossible mission, but how about having a decentralized blockchain policing system whereby all newly launched projects will have its discussion portal and the token may be powered by another service that generates wealth to reward users for discussing about projects on the platform.

You could use a service like Blockstack to build such a decentralized community hub. The problem, however, still would persist, it would become even more difficult to combat scams, because the blockchain treats every opinion in the same way. Downvoting, like at Steemit, could be an alternative, but it can and will be abused. No variant is perfect ...

Another way though is through KYC. We can make it a communal thing that for anyone to buy from any ICO the team has to be properly verified and accountable to an authority.

And who decides which authority is valid? If it's a "community vote", then also the scammers can vote authorities they like.

IMO, more important than such "censorship mechanisms" is education - I've thought, for example, about a wiki about known crypto scam techniques and methods how to determine the risk of a project.

Also we need people with other unique social services, not just talk about everything crypto, like facebook, about people and for the people, a kind of hub like that is what I mean.

There are some forum software packages (like Friendica) that could, in theory, connect the hubs at different platforms - e.g. a Friendica-based Bitcointalk could communicate with Facebook and Twitter groups. I don't know if the new forum software is intended to provide a similar feature. It would be cool but would require LOT of work as social media platforms change their APIs all the time ...

The volatility of the cryptos are a very big issue, but for companies to be tokenized on the blockchain, their token value is not based on the btc price but entirely based on the companies physical market capitalization,

This would be the ideal situation, but it would require a similar transparency policy by the companies than in those who are listed at regular stock exchanges. In this case, I think it's possible. But at the current situation, we see what happens to almost all tokens representing a "company" out there at Ethereum and other similar platforms: they largely follow the Bitcoin price.

You could use a service like Blockstack to build such a decentralized community hub. The problem, however, still would persist, it would become even more difficult to combat scams, because the blockchain treats every opinion in the same way. Downvoting, like at Steemit, could be an alternative, but it can and will be abused. No variant is perfect ...

Exactly, no variant is perfect, but combining different variants to respond to an outcome of another variant in a relational model and not specifically value a project based on it being downvoted or upvoted but based on so many other factors which will be factored in during the coding process, could go a long way, but like you said, the end result will still be very far from being perfect. Giving it a shot is good. I'll check out Blockstack

And who decides which authority is valid? If it's a "community vote", then also the scammers can vote authorities they like.

IMO, more important than such "censorship mechanisms" is education - I've thought, for example, about a wiki about known crypto scam techniques and methods how to determine the risk of a project.

Making that wiki will be awesome, and it needs to be marketed well, I and my team have a platform we're working on, it has a future to be a hub where such information can be publicized and it will have a good reach. I will gladly make such publicity without being paid for it.

As for authorities, blockchain projects has to be such that any project coming from any part of the world must undergo national KYCs first, like the SEC for projects from the United States. If at the national level, the government can attest of the validity of project team members, then people who wants to invest can be rest assured that they know who they're transferring their wealth to. Then if project team mates are unverified, only the dull ones will invest in such a project. Also, if a project launches an ICO without proper verification or location, they could be tracked down by an authority set up by maybe the United Nations or any big enough body. Another thing I'll add is that there will be no rules nor requirement for a project to be approved by any government, all that matters is for the government to be aware that the people in their country are who they say they are. Also the only rule that has to be available is that for funds they raised, adequate contract will be made by the team members to deliver on their project promises or face trials which will lead to jail terms and asset liquidation. If these things are not in place, the mainstream won't feel protected and will be very skeptical to have full involvement in cryptos.

There are some forum software packages (like Friendica) that could, in theory, connect the hubs at different platforms - e.g. a Friendica-based Bitcointalk could communicate with Facebook and Twitter groups. I don't know if the new forum software is intended to provide a similar feature. It would be cool but would require LOT of work as social media platforms change their APIs all the time ...

It will be awesome if Bitcointalk has a new feature like that coming. However, my main issue with Bitcointalk is that they should break program flows a bit for the less technical persons who just want to socialize to have some frenzy, and for the UI to be worked on so well, so that the flares of platforms with good user experience like Instagram and others will be here in the crypto world. The service can also have other ways of generating funds for themselves aside from adverts at the bottom of a post, and tiny evil fees. There has to be a way to make the platform an income generator so that they can afford the maintenance required as I envision.

[cryptohipo]

I think the developers are doing as much as they can within a possible scale. The blockchain system is an unusual and unique feature, and being So, it's hard to have everything in such a short time , they're developing things from time to time with an appreciable fast recovery speed, and the other things would also emerge gradually.

[first_user111]

Hello guys, how would you ever imagine that I am currently a victim of a scam with one of the crypto exchanges Mercatox. The exchange is illegally holding my coins and illegally restricted me from buying or selling coins I bought on their platform. This is how far anonymity and non-regulations have made the crypto community so untrustworthy. I created a thread for this reason, please visit the thread and help out in every way you can. Thanks. Here's the link: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5045735