Blockchain technology
- Thread starter Tomek
- Start date
realitybugll
Jedi Council Member
from
"One Does Not Simply Find Satoshi Nakamoto" http://www.coindesk.com/one-simply-find-satoshi-nakamoto/
"One Does Not Simply Find Satoshi Nakamoto" http://www.coindesk.com/one-simply-find-satoshi-nakamoto/
realitybugll
Jedi Council Member
It's becoming clearer that the author of the Newsweek article pretty much fabricated the whole piece. She met Dorian, she met his family, but I would say all of the quotes, her "evidence", are highly suspect.
I am a bit interested how she came to make the decision to destroy her career and reputation for a moment of fame. Some are saying it has to do with the relaunch of Newsweeks print edition.
this is a hard to watch interview with the writer, Leah Mcgrath by bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/can-the-real-dorian-nakamoto-please-stand-up-vSiahPV4ReyViJX2_IJhZw.html
one quote I found amusing
It appears to me that her original intent with the story was to be able to maintain some degree of deniability in falsely portraying Dorian as Nakamoto when the truth became evident. This 'plan' didn't work for her in the interview though.
I am a bit interested how she came to make the decision to destroy her career and reputation for a moment of fame. Some are saying it has to do with the relaunch of Newsweeks print edition.
this is a hard to watch interview with the writer, Leah Mcgrath by bloomberg.com
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/can-the-real-dorian-nakamoto-please-stand-up-vSiahPV4ReyViJX2_IJhZw.html
one quote I found amusing
It appears to me that her original intent with the story was to be able to maintain some degree of deniability in falsely portraying Dorian as Nakamoto when the truth became evident. This 'plan' didn't work for her in the interview though.
realitybugll
Jedi Council Member
some better news.
This man is going to be associated with bitcoin forever now. In the end I'm not sure, if he will benefit or not, whether he will react in good or bad spirits to the donations. Also, how he will deal with his newfound celebrity status.
Now that it is relatively certain he is not Satoshi Nakamoto and sitting on close to 1 million bitcoins valued at half a billion dollars, it brings into question the newsweeks articles narrative, supported by anecdotal evidense and attributed quotes, that Dorian Satoshi was very frugal had no use for money.
At least his private life should return to some normalcy, when the case for him being Satoshi Nakamoto is 100% put to rest.
It's interesting to me how his life aligned to this moment, to be falsely outed as Satoshi Nakamoto. I suppose it's similar to a case of anyone that recieves national media attention overnight, usually it is for a bad thing or a good thing, not just being accused of being someone, which does make this a more unique case.
This man is going to be associated with bitcoin forever now. In the end I'm not sure, if he will benefit or not, whether he will react in good or bad spirits to the donations. Also, how he will deal with his newfound celebrity status.
Now that it is relatively certain he is not Satoshi Nakamoto and sitting on close to 1 million bitcoins valued at half a billion dollars, it brings into question the newsweeks articles narrative, supported by anecdotal evidense and attributed quotes, that Dorian Satoshi was very frugal had no use for money.
At least his private life should return to some normalcy, when the case for him being Satoshi Nakamoto is 100% put to rest.
It's interesting to me how his life aligned to this moment, to be falsely outed as Satoshi Nakamoto. I suppose it's similar to a case of anyone that recieves national media attention overnight, usually it is for a bad thing or a good thing, not just being accused of being someone, which does make this a more unique case.
- I mean if one has no value - no quantity of it could have any value 
The Bitcoin community seems to be having some serious problems recently:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html?_r=0 ["A Bitcoin Believer’s Crisis of Faith" by Nathaniel Popper, NY Times. 14 January 2016]
http://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.a9nrqxr1i ["The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" by Mike Hearn. January 2016]
There seem to have been problems with scaling up the Bitcoin software processes to handle larger numbers of transactions, as the alternative currency become more popular. The community is split on which direction should be taken. A hacker attacked users of a new"Bitcoin XT" system.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/17/business/dealbook/the-bitcoin-believer-who-gave-up.html?_r=0 ["A Bitcoin Believer’s Crisis of Faith" by Nathaniel Popper, NY Times. 14 January 2016]
http://medium.com/@octskyward/the-resolution-of-the-bitcoin-experiment-dabb30201f7#.a9nrqxr1i ["The resolution of the Bitcoin experiment" by Mike Hearn. January 2016]
There seem to have been problems with scaling up the Bitcoin software processes to handle larger numbers of transactions, as the alternative currency become more popular. The community is split on which direction should be taken. A hacker attacked users of a new"Bitcoin XT" system.
N
no-mans-land
Guest
Mal7 said:
It's sad to observe that a bunch of greedy people who own the majority of the mining power in china try to suppress the upscale of the block size, thus condemn Bitcoin to a slow death. Should no one can come up with a solution to this deadlock, Bitcoin sure will come to an end soon.
Mal7 said:
That was a fascinating read.
I still have trouble understanding exactly how bitcoin works, but I get the raw essence of it. -A mathematically limited list of special number sequences, each one owned and traded in lieu of goods/services. You can "own" a number. Talk about "intellectual rights"!
But for the purposes of international trading, you'd need to split single bitcoins into shares of bitcoins, otherwise there simply wouldn't be enough coinage in circulation for people to actually use. And that's where things get dicey, as I see it. -You'd have the issuance of shares take on similar aspects as our current money system. Nobody but a government or vast banking collective could afford to own any of the original true Bitcoins, and so they would issue shares, which would then become subject to the values of the commodities they represented. Oil, for instance. One country's Bitcoin shares might be worth more than another's, given that rarity of the original Bitcoin was no longer the issue, but rather the rarity of the goods/services being supplied by the owner of the Bitcoin. I can see the complexity spiral out to where it is now with the current money market economist gurus blathering on about nothing real while the psychopaths game the system to death.
And the real problem... What mechanism is in place to prevent lending and usury charging on those shares once the system has become too big to properly understand by the layperson?
From the community-based development side of things, the Bitcoin enterprise looks a lot like the GIMP open source project; GIMP was going to topple Photoshop! -Except it didn't because the volunteer development core couldn't make headway on certain issues, and so it foundered. -Which leads me to think that any collective project which has the power to elevate humanity but which is not being run by members who are engaged at the same time in Gurdjieff-level self-work, is doomed to fail due to natural mechanical influences.
I can see some large collective picking up where Bitcoin leaves off, (if it doesn't just die), marketing the whole idea to the world and serving the interests of the banking elites. -So, no real change from normal other than the logo and the level of control over who gets to have wealth and who doesn't.
Woodsman said:
I'm not an expert either, but have watched a few videos about Bitcoin recently. These left me even more confused than before I watched them. I don't think the need to split bitcoins is a problem though, as you can trade any fraction of a bitcoin, e.g. sending someone 0.000037 bitcoin is no harder than sending them 1 bitcoin.
It is a decentralized network, on which all previous bitcoin transactions up to the present are recorded in the Blockchain. This record of previous transactions isn't just obsessive record-keeping, it is integral to what makes the transactions valid and indisputable. To make this system work, computers in the network need to agree on the order in which transactions are added onto this blockchain. This is done by having a mathematical problem which computers have to solve within a certain degree of accuracy. When a computer solves this problem, it allows more transactions to be processed and added to the blockchain, and the computer's operator is rewarded by being allocated new bitcoin. These problems are kept deliberately very difficult, so that a significant amount of computing power is required to solve them. If the problems were too easy, the system could be manipulated. The difficulty of the problems maintains the decentralized nature of the network, as no single computer or operator is likely to solve several consecutive problems all in a row. (It is not just a single addition to the blockchain that finalized a bitcoin transaction with certainty, but several of the most recent additions are taken into account - the longest string of additions produced gets "voted" on by other computers in the network and finalized into the blockchain.)
Bitcoin is very highly praised by some libertarian anarchists or anarcho-capitalists, because it is a system that allows anonymity, so that people can trade without the dreaded government knowing about it or collecting taxes.
Others who like Bitcoin may not be so extreme in their political views, and may not even think anonymity is an essential factor, but just like the idea of having a competitor to the 3 or 4% commissions or fees charged by credit cards like VISA or payment systems like PayPal. At present, the value of Bitcoin fluctuates so much that the 3 or 4% fees might seem more attractive, if less "principled".
In the early days of Bitcoin's short history, bitcoin mining was relatively easy. Now the computing power that goes into solving the mathematical problems that enable the network is extraordinary (and from the environmental perspective, I think it would probably be fair to say extraordinarily wasteful). The costs of electricity and hardware make up a significant proportion of the actual reward that is received, just as in the physical mining world where it might cost US$500 to get a return of US$1000 of gold.
Below are a couple of videos of two of the largest bitfarm mines, one in China and one in the US. Bitfarm mining is now beyond the power of your average desktop home computer to do economically - you would spend more on electricity to run the computer than you would receive in Bitcoin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8kua5B5K3I ["Life Inside a Secret Chinese Bitcoin Mine"]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ihMqEDs4B8 ["A LOOK INSIDE AMERICA'S LARGEST BITCOIN MINING FARM"]
Some treat Bitcoin as a speculative currency, which may produce an investment for them if it goes up in value. Some people may have made a lot of money when Bitcoin went up to US$1200, if they managed to turn it back into another currency before the Mt. Gox collapse. Although there was a big rise in Bitcoin's value during that time, there was also a much smaller total value of money in Bitcoin at the time, which would make it easier for the price to be far more volatile, and e.g. escalate rapidly following a trigger such as stories about Bitcoin entering the mainstream media.
Others are less interested in speculating, but more interested in the principle of being able to have a decentralized exchange system not controlled by any bank.
Menna said:
From the video I assume you meant gold? Since there is a maximum number of Bitcoins, it has the same advantage as gold (no inflation possible, not dependent on any bank or central authority), but does not have some of the physical problems that gold has (e.g. storage, transportation, transaction, theft, disappearance, 'tainting' with Tungsten etc.). Bitcoin really is a very promising innovation and has proven itself so far, if it were not endangered by a couple of spoiled, greedy, vectored core developers which now prevent its evolution into something bigger.
The links Mal7 posted (fascinating read, thanks!) explain that 3 of the 5 core developers that control the currently used most popupar fork of the source code don't allow the protocol's bandwidth to grow, which is already saturated; apparently because most of the cheap computing power is now in China, which is behind the infamous 'government firewall' which has low bandwidth ("like hotel WIFI") to the outside world. It seems this handfull of people have a motivation to keep it that way. This currently creates a split in the community and infrastructure. It seems at this point that Bitcoin could be failing due to a very human problem, and not because of a technical design flaw of Bitcoin.
There is still hope though. Due to its Open Source nature, everyone can improve Bitcoin. If a majority of nodes install that new version and then 'vote' for new features/improvements, they become the new rules. Due to the present trouble, there seem to be 3 forks of the Bitcoin source code that already have the issues fixed. Only, it seems they are being censored and some of them are receiving DoS attacks and even death threats. They could still 'win' the game though... Let's wait and see.
Woodsman said:
It's not about intellectual rights I think. The blockchain is validated by reversing a mathematical hash function, which is very difficult to do. It is simply a record of all transactions that is impossible to manipulate, unless one attacker has far more computing power than all the rest of nodes combined (which is extremely unlikely). And if it still happens, the manipulation would be discovered and measures taken (e.g. manipulator removed or manipulation undone). The blockchain therefore proves who owns how many Bitcoins or Bitcoin-fractions.
Woodsman said:
As Mal7 said, you can easily split Bitcoins like gold. Like: 1 bar, 1 ounce, 1/2 ounce, 1/10 ounce etc.
Woodsman said:
Lending is a valid service independent of currency, and is not part of the problem that Bitcoin solves. Usury, trickery and all the other social problems will still exist and must be tackled by other means.
Woodsman said:
It's sad but it seems to be so. This current Bitcoin crisis should serve as an example for many other community projects.
mantype3
The Force is Strong With This One
no-man's-land said:
Very interesting reads. Taking what Mike Hearn said at a glance it would seem that the whole thing could be brought down by Right Wing Authoritatian personalities in key places (the core development team). When you consider how he says this team was essentially created it makes sense. This is what i found most interesting in what he wrote, mostly because it is rather the least expected place for a developer suspect problems would come from at first (emphasis mine):
[quote author=Mike Hearn ]
Why is Bitcoin Core keeping the limit?
People problems.
When Satoshi left, he handed over the reins of the program we now call Bitcoin Core to Gavin Andresen, an early contributor. Gavin is a solid and experienced leader who can see the big picture. His reliable technical judgement is one of the reasons I had the confidence to quit Google (where I had spent nearly 8 years) and work on Bitcoin full time. Only one tiny problem: Satoshi never actually asked Gavin if he wanted the job, and in fact he didn’t. So the first thing Gavin did was grant four other developers access to the code as well. These developers were chosen quickly in order to ensure the project could easily continue if anything happened to him. They were, essentially, whoever was around and making themselves useful at the time.
One of them, Gregory Maxwell, had an unusual set of views: he once claimed he had mathematically proven Bitcoin to be impossible. More problematically, he did not believe in Satoshi’s original vision.
When the project was first announced, Satoshi was asked how a block chain could scale to a large number of payments. Surely the amount of data to download would become overwhelming if the idea took off? This was a popular criticism of Bitcoin in the early days and Satoshi fully expected to be asked about it. He said:
It’s a simple argument: look at what existing payment networks handle, look at what it’d take for Bitcoin to do the same, and then point out that growth doesn’t happen overnight. The networks and computers of the future will be better than today. And indeed back-of-the-envelope calculations suggested that, as he said to me, “it never really hits a scale ceiling” even when looking at more factors than just bandwidth.
Maxwell did not agree with this line of thinking. From an interview in December 2014:
[quote author= ]
Problems with decentralization as bitcoin grows are not going to diminish either, according to Maxwell: “There’s an inherent tradeoff between scale and decentralization when you talk about transactions on the network.”
The problem, he said, is that as bitcoin transaction volume increases, larger companies will likely be the only ones running bitcoin nodes because of the inherent cost.
[/quote]
The idea that Bitcoin is inherently doomed because more users means less decentralisation is a pernicious one. It ignores the fact that despite all the hype, real usage is low, growing slowly and technology gets better over time. It is a belief Gavin and I have spent much time debunking. And it leads to an obvious but crazy conclusion: if decentralisation is what makes Bitcoin good, and growth threatens decentralisation, then Bitcoin should not be allowed to grow.
Instead, Maxwell concluded, Bitcoin should become a sort of settlement layer for some vaguely defined, as yet un-created non-blockchain based system.
[/quote]
It is indeed sad, but as Mr. Hearn says, this was an experiment. There will probably be more things to learn from in future developments.
From https://www.quora.com/Whats-Blockchain-in-a-plain-English
How will blockchain technology transform financial services?
An article from : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pradeep-aradhya/are-we-ready-for-a-global_b_9591580.html
It is a good summary of what is Blockchain an its potential.
To access all the links, visit the original article.
There's a huge potential behind, who knows what might come out of this !
Two examples:
1. http://arcade.city which offer a true decentralized ridesharing service — what some are now calling the 'Uber killer'.
2. The social network Synereo is worth a look http://www.synereo.com/learn-more/, its attention economy model :
How will blockchain technology transform financial services?
This article first appeared on The Financial Times.
It doesn’t feel like a revolutionary moment. A member of a small team from the Swiss bank UBS, holed up on the 42nd floor of London’s Canary Wharf, taps a screen and a bond is sold by a company called ABC to an investor called XYZ.
It is the type of transaction executed millions of times a day by banks globally but this dummy transfer is different. It was completed via an internal blockchain, the shared database technology that gained notoriety as the platform for the crypto currency bitcoin. Banks are now racing to harness the power of the blockchain technology, in a belief that it could cut up to $20bn off costs and transform the way the industry works.
UBS is not alone. Its skyscraper laboratory is part of a huge experiment taking place across several industries that is most pronounced in the finance world. Banks, insurers and companies ranging from IBM to PwC are trying to work out how they can adapt the technology that, in its simplest form, allows consumers and suppliers to connect directly and form online networks, removing the need for middlemen.
For the financial services sector it offers the opportunity to overhaul existing banking infrastructure, speed settlements and streamline stock exchanges, although regulators will want to be assured that it can be done securely. The developments potentially combine two of the most dynamic industries: the computing hub of Silicon Valley and the money management of Wall Street and the City of London.
“We could go the way that file transfer technology changed music, allowing new businesses like iTunes to emerge,” says Michael Harte, chief operations and technology officer at Barclays. “That is why there is such feverish activity at the moment.”
No central authority
Blockchain has been hailed by admirers as holding the revolutionary promise that the internet did two decades ago. Business figures from Microsoft’s Bill Gates to Richard Branson, the founder of the Virgin Group, have extolled its potential; on a trade mission to Asia in August, David Cameron, the UK prime minister, included a blockchain expert among his entourage.
Evangelists say the possibilities are limitless. Applications range from storing client identities to handling cross-border payments, clearing and settling bond or equity trades to smart contracts that are self-executing, such as a credit derivative that pays out automatically if a company goes bust or a bond that regularly pays interest to the holder.
Some go as far as to suggest that the technology even offers the potential to disrupt companies that have forged reputations as “disrupters”, such as Uber and Airbnb.
At its core, blockchain is a network of computers, all of which must approve a transaction has taken place before it is recorded, in a “chain” of computer code. As with bitcoin — the first application of the technology, applied to money — cryptography is used to keep transactions secure and costs are shared among those in the network. The details of the transfer are recorded on a public ledger that anyone on the network can see.
In the present system a central ledger is likely to act as the custodian of that information. But on a blockchain the information is transparently held in a shared database, without a single body acting as middleman. Advocates argue that trust is increased among the parties, as there is no possibility for abuse by someone in a dominant position.
The lack of a central authority is the very feature of bitcoin that provoked consternation among traditional financial institutions, most of whom gave it a wide berth. The wisdom of that seemed to be borne out when the crypto currency became bogged down in scandals ranging from its links to drugs money in the now-defunct black market website Silk Road to the disappearance of client assets at the collapsed bitcoin exchange Mt Gox.
Yet almost every big financial services institution has now overcome that initial suspicion. And the technology has swung from being a weapon wielded against the banks to being heralded as their ultimate back-office makeover, a bitter blow to the libertarians who conceived the idea of the blockchain to circumvent the global banking system.
“Suits are replacing hoodies and ripped jeans at blockchain conferences,” says Mark Buitenhek, head of transaction services at Dutch bank ING, which has hired a team of specialists to examine ways of using the technology to increase speed and cut costs in payments and trade finance.
Experiments, initially conducted in secret, have begun in earnest over the past year.
The desire to make a success of the technology, also described as a “distributed ledger”, is huge. It offers major rewards: cutting out inefficient banking intermediaries could save billions for consumers and the financial services industry, enthusiasts claim.
The technology could cut banks’ infrastructure costs for cross-border payments, securities trading and regulatory compliance by $15bn-$20bn a year from 2022, according to a recent report by Spanish bank Santander, management consultancy Oliver Wyman and venture capital investor Anthemis.
“In lots of areas it looks like the blockchain will work and it is easy to see how it could revolutionise finance,” says Rhomaios Ram, head of product management at Deutsche Bank’s global transaction banking division. “T he speed of execution is so much faster for securities settlement. [And] you can see how it could reduce the capital, that banks have to hold, against each trade.”
For big banks, scrambling to modernise their often outdated IT systems in the face of pressure from regulators, digital challengers and cyber criminals, blockchain represents an opportunity to rethink much of what they do.
The ability of the technology to provide an unforgeable record of identity, including the history of an individual’s transactions, is one area being eagerly explored. Intermeshing records could prove highly useful, insurers believe, in cross-checking an individual’s actions.
“If you have a secure distributed ledger it could be used to store validated ‘know your customer’ data on individuals or companies,” says David Grace, global financial crime leader at PwC, the professional services firm. “It’s a potentially global application that could provide more security over identity data and where that data are stored.”
Governments are also investigating its potential: Honduras is using blockchain to handle land titles while the Isle of Man has begun testing the technology with a registry of companies on the island. Longer term, a tamper-proof ledger could be used to hold medical records or develop transparent electoral voting systems.
Banking on the future
While they understand its potential, many financial institutions are still trying to work out whether blockchain technology offers a cost-cutting opportunity or represents a margin-eroding threat that could put them out of business. Banks are taking a variety of approaches in their search for answers.
Some have developed in-house models, such as Citigroup’s creation of Citicoin, a digital currency being tested in the bank’s laboratory. Others have chosen to invest in a specialist: Goldman Sachs led a $50m funding round for Circle Internet Financial, which aims to use bitcoin to handle consumer payments.
A third route has been to find a partner. Commonwealth Bank of Australia has teamed up with open source software provider Ripple to build a blockchain system for payments between its subsidiaries. Some banks, like Barclays and UBS, are working with blockchain start-ups through a technology incubator or accelerator programme.
UBS has a team of eight working in London’s Canary Wharf alongside start-ups in what it calls its Level 39 incubator — they graduated to the 42nd floor as the project grew. The collaboration, to investigate bond trading and the creation of its own currency, exposes a major problem that financial institutions are grappling with: whether membership of a distributed ledger network should be invitation only, and therefore more controlled, or not.
Bitcoin’s open source blockchain, described as a “permissionless” system, means it is decentralised and open to anyone. UBS and Microsoft are both working with blockchain start-up Ethereum, which runs a similar open source technology, and allows for the smart contracts that can execute trades automatically.
But many in banking, wary of losing their grip over operations or of upsetting regulators, see the future in closed, or permissioned-only, networks.
Almost two dozen of the world’s largest banks, including JPMorgan, UBS and Barclays, have thrown their weight behind R3 CEV, a start-up venture, to set up a private blockchain open only to invited participants who between them maintain and run the network. It forms part of an effort to build an industry-wide platform to standardise use of the technology.
“This isn’t going to happen with everyone working on their own: it’s got to be collaborative,” argues Hyder Jaffrey, head of the blockchain team at UBS.
There are about 300 technology start-ups, mostly in the US and UK, developing ideas for how to make blockchain work for financial services, according to PwC. Many of them are run by former senior executives at big banks, for example Blythe Masters, formerly from JPMorgan and now leading the blockchain start-up Digital Asset Holdings.
“You should be taking this technology as seriously as you should have been taking the development of the Internet in the early 1990s,” she told a recent audience. “It’s analogous to email for money.”
Venture capital has poured into the sector according to Coindesk, a bitcoin trade publication, with an estimated $462m committed between January and September this year, double the amount raised in the same period of 2014.
A question of security
Amid the fervour there is a recognition that it will be between two and five years before real-world, practical applications emerge. The technology will have to overcome serious hurdles to prove itself to be robust and secure and will need to win regulatory backing.
“The question in the end is how safe is all of this and would you put your life savings on the blockchain?” says ING’s Mr Buitenhek. “What do regulators and central banks do about it and can banks and regulators guarantee it?”
Vitaly Kamluk, principal security researcher at Kaspersky Lab, which advises clients on digital security, argues that the decentralised nature of distributed ledger technology has still to be reconciled with how such databases can be maintained cleanly and securely.
“The problem with malicious actors can be quite easily solved when it’s a centralised technology,” he says. “[But] this is yet to be solved in cases of decentralised architectures where each participant has equal rights and cannot enforce a sole decision.”
In June, the US Securities and Exchange Commission agreed a $20,000 settlement with California’s Sand Hill Exchange for offering trading in derivatives linked to private Silicon Valley companies, using the blockchain for settlement. The SEC ruled that Sand Hill was “illegally offering complex derivative products to retail investors”.
Other reactions have been warmer: the Bank of England is studying the technology and said in a recent paper that “it may be possible in the future — in theory, at least — for the existing infrastructure of the financial system to be gradually replaced by a variety of distributed systems”.
The technology is already handling a brisk business. On an average day more than 120,000 transactions are added to bitcoin’s blockchain, representing about $75m exchanged, according to blockchain.info. There are now 380,000 blocks; the ledger weighs in at nearly 45 gigabytes.
But it still has a long way to go before it can prove itself in the world of finance. For instance, it is not yet clear that the technology can be scaled up in an efficient enough way to meet the challenge.
“There was some hype six to nine months ago when you had to be talking about the blockchain,” says Didier Valet, head of corporate and investment banking at France’s Société Générale, which recently signed up to the R3 CEV venture. “[But] the jury is still out as to whether it will be revolutionary or not.”
Publication does not imply endorsement of views by the World Economic Forum.
Author: The Financial Times covers, comments and analyses the latest UK and international business, finance, economic and political news.
Image: An illustration picture shows a projection of binary code on a man holding a laptop computer. REUTERS/Kacper Pempel.
An article from : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/pradeep-aradhya/are-we-ready-for-a-global_b_9591580.html
It is a good summary of what is Blockchain an its potential.
To access all the links, visit the original article.
There's a huge potential behind, who knows what might come out of this !
Two examples:
1. http://arcade.city which offer a true decentralized ridesharing service — what some are now calling the 'Uber killer'.
2. The social network Synereo is worth a look http://www.synereo.com/learn-more/, its attention economy model :
