Blockchain technology

[FSP]

That's what I'm trying to figure out. Many of the major companies that are developing blockchain based solutions are calling it something else (such as "digital trade chain"). There are also some smaller companies.

I posted a link that mentions 11 companies that are developing blockchain technologies.

I’m not sure I think there is a huge misunderstanding blockchain is just an algorithm. How to invest in it? The best way would to become a blockchain dev and develop your own solutions for other people. It’s not something you can directly invest in...unless you’re playing the game (bitcoin etc, ) or investing the company that utilizes it, unless you know how to manipulate the technology itself

 

[Karb]

I’m not sure I think there is a huge misunderstanding blockchain is just an algorithm. How to invest in it? The best way would to become a blockchain dev and develop your own solutions for other people. It’s not something you can directly invest in...unless you’re playing the game (bitcoin etc, ) or investing the company that utilizes it, unless you know how to manipulate the technology itself

I'm talking about investing in companies that are developing new technologies based on blockchain bro.

 

[FSP]

I'm talking about investing in companies that are developing new technologies based on blockchain bro.

But that’s not necessarily a move that would raise stock prices or affect their value of a company...it’s just using a different way of storing information. So my point is that would be like, the most confusing way to go about this, if you’re asking for the BEST and worst way. That’s how I think about it. Like for instance IBM isn’t necessarily a better company to invest in suddenly, at least that’s not how I see it. Their blockchain isn’t even true blockchain anyway. True blockchain tech is supposed to be open, free and not for profit

 

[---]

Like Scotty (the real one) said "Aye, sir. The more they overthink the plumbing, the easier it is to stop up the drain". The blockchain has a single point of failure (and control) despite what they say AND the PK gen algorithm allows for clashes.

Don't see how that is true at all, we have ran a number of scenarios and certain blockchians to find a weakest. Only serious problem would be the ledger size after the block chain is widen adopted and that info going into nodes would be huge. Even if the node fails there are others to back it up. Unless you want to elaborate on your theory.

 

[FSP]

I guess if I were kaarbash and I wanted to throw money at something blockchain related that’s not bitcoin or whatever. You could try looking into investing into mining resources or something like that. Bitcoin really is the purest way to invest in the tech without anything else involved

 

[null]

Elaborate breh

EDIT: @LShedged

1. Duplicates
What happens if your bitcoin client generates an address identical to another person's? .

2. The single point of failure is the math and once compromised the entire system can be exploited.
.

3. In peer-to-peer consensus networks if you control (or manipulate) a majority of nodes you can make the network believe you rather than the real owner of an action. Rather like the way DNS attacks are used to redirect traffic to invalid hosts.
.
Is there a real threat of so called ">50% attack"?

 

[null]

Don't see how that is true at all, we have ran a number of scenarios and certain blockchians to find a weakest. Only serious problem would be the ledger size after the block chain is widen adopted and that info going into nodes would be huge. Even if the node fails there are others to back it up. Unless you want to elaborate on your theory.

I answered above. I should also add that what Scotty means is when you make everything complicated it becomes easier to stop the system.

Much like the dystopian future in Brazil - Brazil (1985 film) - Wikipedia .

If you are not careful with this when the system breaks down there is no substitute in place. Much how we are today, but at least there are alternatives like other currencies, gold, etc. If you become entirely reliant on a system which can fail (or make errors), break the system and everything creaks to a halt.

Think about what we have now. Remove money and people starve. The odd thing about that is that money is not an essential part of producing food. It is just a means to exchange labour. The problem is that our systems become reliant on money and removing the money then stops the activity.

 

[---]

EDIT: @LShedged

1. Duplicates
What happens if your bitcoin client generates an address identical to another person's? .

2. The single point of failure is the math and once compromised the entire system can be exploited.
.

3. In peer-to-peer consensus networks if you control (or manipulate) a majority of nodes you can make the network believe you rather than the real owner of an action. Rather like the way DNS attacks are used to redirect traffic to invalid hosts.
.
Is there a real threat of so called ">50% attack"?

Thanks we ran through scenario 1 before have to look in 2 and 3.

 

[FSP]

Thanks we ran through scenario 1 before have to look in 2 and 3.

Ok won't this take more computer resources than the entire country to achieve making it a non-factor

 

[null]

Thanks we ran through scenario 1 before have to look in 2 and 3.

If you can get clashes there will be an argument that the ledger is not infallible. If it is flawed, then it will make mistakes.

For example label the wrong person as lifer-prisoner, transfer your possessions to someone else, rob you of your life savings etc.

They are looking at Quantum Safe blockchain - How the Russians used quantum mechanics to secure blockchains .

They are looking at reversible transactions.. NOT sure if that cannot be exploited but haven't looked.

I haven't seen a solution for peer-to-peer (on peer only networks) majority manipulation.

Anyway all in all my point was that there are fundamental issues with blockchain which have to be addressed before we can rely on it.

 

[---]

I answered above. I should also add that what Scotty means is when you make everything complicated it becomes easier to stop the system.

Much like the dystopian future in Brazil - Brazil (1985 film) - Wikipedia .

If you are not careful with this when the system breaks down there is no substitute in place. Much how we are today, but at least there are alternatives like other currencies, gold, etc. If you become entirely reliant on a system which can fail (or make errors), break the system and everything creaks to a halt.

Think about what we have now. Remove money and people starve. The odd thing about that is that money is not an essential part of producing food. It is just a means to exchange labour. The problem is that our systems become reliant on money and removing the money then stops the activity.

I understand what your saying but we still have other assets classes that we assign a value towards.

Chains and cryptos are just another assets class. Value will always be assigned to what people deem as an adequate means of value. Honestly I look forward to them as the current assets classes have serious flaw. Some of those flaws are embed in the assets classes themselves.

 

[null]

Ok won't this take more computer resources than the entire country to achieve making it a non-factor

no

 

[null]

I understand what your saying but we still have other assets classes that we assign a value towards.

Chains and cryptos are just another assets class. Value will always be assigned to what people deem as an adequate means of value. Honestly I look forward to them as the current assets classes have serious flaw. Some of those flaws are embed in the assets classes themselves.

I am talking about the future. This will bring benefits much in the same way that banking brings benefits but the downside is that if banking fails society falls apart.

In any case when we move to electronic money cash will be illegal. Just like barter is illegal today.

 

[FSP]

no

. Quantum computing is like 1000 years away from doing anything that big.

Unless you have one already

 

[null]

. Quantum computing is like 1000 years away from doing anything that big.

Unless you have one already

A 256 Qbit quantum computer is a 1000 years away you say ? We are at 16 already.