Try to answer the difficult questions...

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Two very good reports on the "blockchains without bitcoin" trend.

Tim Swanson: "Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger
systems":
http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf


"‘BLOCKCHAIN WITHOUT BITCOIN IS NOW A THING"
http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/




A few quotes from the Tim Swanson report:

"The coin (bitcoin) is an integral part of the network’s incentive mechanism to
maintain its security; the two have an existential symbiotic relationship.
But that is not to say you could not start from a fresh “mulligan,” taking part of the toolkit –
some of the cryptographic primitives and concepts – and start over with something tailored to
specific use-cases.

"unlikely that financial service providers like banks will have a need for cryptocurrency systems"


"Stems such as Bitcoin use anonymous validators and are unable to be a legally official register of assets."



Basically:

"From "Trustless" to "Verifiable""

[pawel7777]

Two very good reports on the "blockchains without bitcoin" trend.

Tim Swanson: "Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger
systems":
http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf


"‘BLOCKCHAIN WITHOUT BITCOIN IS NOW A THING"
http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/




A few quotes from the Tim Swanson report:

"The coin (bitcoin) is an integral part of the network’s incentive mechanism to
maintain its security; the two have an existential symbiotic relationship.
But that is not to say you could not start from a fresh “mulligan,” taking part of the toolkit –
some of the cryptographic primitives and concepts – and start over with something tailored to
specific use-cases.

"unlikely that financial service providers like banks will have a need for cryptocurrency systems"


"Stems such as Bitcoin use anonymous validators and are unable to be a legally official register of assets."



Basically:

"From "Trustless" to "Verifiable""

So they created yet another centralised data-transmission system and called that 'blockchain' to get some attention? Proved that blockchain can exist without native token, just by stretching the definition of the "blockchain"?

Wake me up when it's decentralised and trustless (and working).

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Two very good reports on the "blockchains without bitcoin" trend.

Tim Swanson: "Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger
systems":
http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf


"‘BLOCKCHAIN WITHOUT BITCOIN IS NOW A THING"
http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/




A few quotes from the Tim Swanson report:

"The coin (bitcoin) is an integral part of the network’s incentive mechanism to
maintain its security; the two have an existential symbiotic relationship.
But that is not to say you could not start from a fresh “mulligan,” taking part of the toolkit –
some of the cryptographic primitives and concepts – and start over with something tailored to
specific use-cases.

"unlikely that financial service providers like banks will have a need for cryptocurrency systems"


"Stems such as Bitcoin use anonymous validators and are unable to be a legally official register of assets."



Basically:

"From "Trustless" to "Verifiable""

So they created yet another centralised data-transmission system and called that 'blockchain' to get some attention? Proved that blockchain can exist without native token, just by stretching the definition of the "blockchain"?

Wake me up when it's decentralised and trustless (and working).

From my understanding: It's not "centralized". It's distributed. Just because the validators are known doesn't mean it's "centralized".
Distributed ledgers (the "permissioned" ones Tim Swanson is describing) are cryptographically verifiable.

Quite different from existing "centralised data-transmission systems".

I'm not an expert but pretty sure Eris Industries products (for example) are "working", you can use them right now.

[Wandererfromthenorth]

Let's be clear I'm not saying that BTC can't rise in value again. I'm just saying that one possible reason for it can't be "because the blockchain".

Some simply say:  "blockchains cure cancer ( ), and since bitcoin is necessary for the blockchain to function, that means bitcoin -> moon". This logic is flawed.



I think the only way BTC can rise in value and "be successful" is if it becomes some kind of gold 2.0 store of value out of pure speculation (part of gold's marketcap is simply speculation as well for example). I think it's kinda unlikely, but possible.

Not as a "currency for the internet", not as an efficient way to transfer value (POW is not designed to be cheap, and transactions are not exactly fast), global currency/replacement of fiat (let's be realistic), "because blockchain" or whatever other reason.

[manselr]

Two very good reports on the "blockchains without bitcoin" trend.

Tim Swanson: "Consensus-as-a-service: a brief report on the emergence of permissioned, distributed ledger
systems":
http://www.ofnumbers.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Permissioned-distributed-ledgers.pdf


"‘BLOCKCHAIN WITHOUT BITCOIN IS NOW A THING"
http://prestonbyrne.com/2015/04/08/blockchain-without-bitcoin-is-now-a-thing/




A few quotes from the Tim Swanson report:

"The coin (bitcoin) is an integral part of the network’s incentive mechanism to
maintain its security; the two have an existential symbiotic relationship.
But that is not to say you could not start from a fresh “mulligan,” taking part of the toolkit –
some of the cryptographic primitives and concepts – and start over with something tailored to
specific use-cases.

"unlikely that financial service providers like banks will have a need for cryptocurrency systems"


"Stems such as Bitcoin use anonymous validators and are unable to be a legally official register of assets."



Basically:

"From "Trustless" to "Verifiable""

So they created yet another centralised data-transmission system and called that 'blockchain' to get some attention? Proved that blockchain can exist without native token, just by stretching the definition of the "blockchain"?

Wake me up when it's decentralised and trustless (and working).

I think all these guys saying "blockchain is good, bitcoin is meh" are just trying to sound intelligent and don't really get it. This pic does sum it all up:

[pawel7777]

From my understanding: It's not "centralized". It's distributed. Just because the validators are known doesn't mean it's "centralized".
Distributed ledgers (the "permissioned" ones Tim Swanson is describing) are crytpographically verifiable.

Quite different from existing "centralised data-transmission systems".

I'm not an expert but pretty sure Eris Industries products (for example) are "working", you can use them right now.

Distributed =/= decentralised (can be but doesn't have to)

If you have to trust 'validator' and cannot enter the system as equal party, then such system is centralised.

I'm a bit tech-handicapped myself and I don't quite understand how such 'blockchain' would work, what would be incentive for participants and what would protect it from infinite-loops and bad actors. To my understanding, it has to be centralised, or be closed to any untrusted 3rd parties.

The author of the article (you quoted) clearly states that BTC blockchain and coinless-blockchains are very different ideas, and if the latter are successful they could only 'highjack' only part of BTC blockchain abilities.