Is anyone else starting to become a bit worried? mod note in first post

makeorbrake

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

You think that it's not possible? I guess I'm getting old as I don't see Google, Amazon and MS all that old ....and if you take the revived Apple from the point at which Jobs came back and revived it...then that too.

sexmag

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

The reason that isn't really happening anymore is due to educational opportunities etc.

All the people who would be building and creating companies are being snapped up right out of collage or are getting grants at summits for their ideas that gives them places to start from.

But to answer your question Facebook was started in a collage dorm room a little over 10 years ago

TallyRand

smacl wrote: »

I think you're picking a very poor example with property there, as relative to just about any other commodity it has a very high price, low transaction rate, and is already tracked by the state. Take another use case I've come across recently, tracking ownership of building tools (e.g. power tools, laser levels and the like) which are currently being heavily targeted for theft by organised crime across Ireland and the UK. The state has no interest in tracking these goods (or any other consumer goods), but the owners most certainly do. The coin in this case equates to a ledger entry and associated transactions in an asset tracking blockchain and has a value based on the demand for such tracking. Once you start getting on-site audits of companies for proof of ownership of tools, this drives demand. We already have this in the software industry where audits are carried out on licenses in use as part of ISO 27000, and we're seeing blockchain such as TAAL addressing this use case. Personally, I don't see nation states getting involved for use cases much beyond what they already do with current database technology. Whether or not coins have a future as an investment vehicle long term is something else again.

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

TallyRand

makeorbrake wrote: »

smacl nailed that one down for you. The 'value' arises due to the demand for the use case and thus the coin.


That's not true though. The second comer is going to have to offer something new - a u.s.p. You can put it to the test in next to no time. Lets say you set up Fiancoin as a replica of bitcoin. You can do it without any skill and in little to no time. How is Fiancoin going to be worth $6339?


Backed by what? And are those offerings you speak to going to be centralised?

Garage startups? Hewlett-Packard? ....Dell? ...with a combined market cap of $100B . I'm sure there are other garage startups but those two spring to mind right now.

You're missing the point completely. Well, ok - if the project you're talking about is going to be centralised, sure. The whole reason this all kicked off is that it demonstrated that it was and is possible to construct systems that assume there is NO trust.
As regards governments, I wouldn't - and don't - trust one of them as far as I could throw them.

On your last point I would argue you do actually trust governments, if you didn’t you would surely liquadate all state related ties and bank accounts, democracy and capitalism have their bad side but best of a bad bunch id say. Otherwise don’t have any fiat and live off crypto my man

unkel

Pussyhands wrote: »

How many companies started in garages in the last 10 years are worth billions now?

You are being greedy now. Back in about 2002 very few people outside of IT geek circles were using Google search engine. I think I set up a FB account in around 2008. Before anyone around me did so and before it was ever mentioned in Irish media...

What do you want? A garage startup by some failed college dudes today, being worth a billion this time next year? A trillion (like Apple) within 10 years?

kaymin

TallyRand wrote: »

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

Exactly + these audits would cost way more than the cost of the theft problem. Even if they were cost effective the value of the coins used to verify ownership would need to be buttons.

smacl

TallyRand wrote: »

In your tools example, what body would carry out the audit and what power would they have? Think about it lads.......

Typically it falls under the remit of QA, where the main contractor needs accreditation to get the work and must apply it to their subcontractors. The civil engineering and construction industry already carries out extensive checks on contractors and their equipment before they enter major sites and while on site. Having been involved in a number of big infrastructural projects in the UK such as CrossRail over the past number of years, if you don't have the appropriate paperwork, you're not going to be allowed on site. Simple as that. Any big site will have resident engineering staff checking the contractors work and this already includes checking servicing and calibration certs on larger pieces of kit. What a cowboy putting up an extension in your back yard might get away with won't fly on any big site. FWIW, there's already big money being spent on equipment tracking, see this for one example. Being able demonstrate proof of ownership of equipment is already an issue and tracking such items is big business.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

Exactly + these audits would cost way more than the cost of the theft problem. Even if they were cost effective the value of the coins used to verify ownership would need to be buttons.

Not really. Most builders already have steel cages in their vans to protect equipment and won't get insurance without it. Cost of tracking serial numbers over a blockchain is tiny by comparison, and using tech such as embedded RFID to store and serial numbers allows them to be checked extremely quickly and makes removal expensive. There is already a lot of money moving around here, quite a bit of which relates to theft which can be prevented by decimating illegal resale value. The impediment isn't the cost or technology, it is that the manufacturers have been slow to react as theft actually benefits them. Their hands are currently being forced by user demand in a competitive environment.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

Typically it falls under the remit of QA, where the main contractor needs accreditation to get the work and must apply it to their subcontractors. The civil engineering and construction industry already carries out extensive checks on contractors and their equipment before they enter major sites and while on site. Having been involved in a number of big infrastructural projects in the UK such as CrossRail over the past number of years, if you don't have the appropriate paperwork, you're not going to be allowed on site. Simple as that. Any big site will have resident engineering staff checking the contractors work and this already includes checking servicing and calibration certs on larger pieces of kit. What a cowboy putting up an extension in your back yard might get away with won't fly on any big site. FWIW, there's already big money being spent on equipment tracking, see this for one example. Being able demonstrate proof of ownership of equipment is already an issue and tracking such items is big business.

You're confusing health and safety and quality checks with ownership of the equipment. Does Crossrail need to or actually verify ownership of equipment used by contractors they engage? No is the short answer.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

Not really. Most builders already have steel cages in their vans to protect equipment and won't get insurance without it. Cost of tracking serial numbers over a blockchain is tiny by comparison, and using tech such as embedded RFID to store and serial numbers allows them to be checked extremely quickly and makes removal expensive. There is already a lot of money moving around here, quite a bit of which relates to theft which can be prevented by decimating illegal resale value. The impediment isn't the cost or technology, it is that the manufacturers have been slow to react as theft actually benefits them. Their hands are currently being forced by user demand in a competitive environment.

It's hardly groundbreaking - conscientious tradesmen will already record the serial numbers of their equipment. So the big breakthrough is to record it on blockchain instead of on a piece of paper or a PC. Will it prevent thefts, no. You're proposing some sort of annual audit to verify ownership which is ridiculous- the total cost of such audits would far far exceed the total cost of theft yet wouldn't prevent the thefts anyway.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

It's hardly groundbreaking - conscientious tradesmen will already record the serial numbers of their equipment. So the big breakthrough is to record it on blockchain instead of on a piece of paper or a PC. Will it prevent thefts, no. You're proposing some sort of annual audit to verify ownership which is ridiculous- the total cost of such audits would far far exceed the total cost of theft yet wouldn't prevent the thefts anyway.

You don't need any annual audit. Storing serial numbers on a blockchain provides large scale decentralised proof of ownership. You go to buy a 2nd hand item, you check proof of ownership. You go to list an item on a market site, you need to provide proof of ownership. You take a piece of equipment onto a site, you provide proof of ownership. This isn't exactly rocket science, nor is it particularly expensive. You simply need to embed the serial number in such a way that replacing it is expensive (remember removing it serves no purpose), RFID is one simple, inexpensive and robust mechanism here but there are others. For very low end equipment something as simple as a barcode would work. It is worth remembering that those involved are paying large multiples of the cost here in insurance already, not to mention down-time when equipment does get stolen.

As for annual audits of equipment being ridiculous, most companies over a certain size already so this. This typically involves placing asset tags on any company owned property above a certain value and scanning it as part of an equipment audit / stock take.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

You're confusing health and safety and quality checks with ownership of the equipment. Does Crossrail need to or actually verify ownership of equipment used by contractors they engage? No is the short answer.

Wrong. On any large tunnelling job, including Crossrail, calibration and servicing certificates for equipment coming onto site do get checked which includes proof of ownership, i.e. serial numbers against operating staff. Equipment gets specified early on and can't be substituted. What (and who) you can bring onto site and use in these jobs is very restricted for obvious reasons. Same goes for any site where the cost of an error during construction would become hugely magnified or even catastrophic down the line. Tunnels, large structures, rail, bridges, etc... FWIW, Health and safety on a large infrastructural project includes health and safety of all the users of that piece of infrastructure for its entire lifetime. The recent disaster in Genoa illustrates why this is critical, and why more stringent QA is being adopted across the construction sector in recent years. While you might be ok with a tradesman showing up to your door with knock-off equipment, the same is no longer true on large construction projects.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

Wrong. On any large tunnelling job, including Crossrail, calibration and servicing certificates for equipment coming onto site do get checked which includes proof of ownership, i.e. serial numbers against operating staff. Equipment gets specified early on and can't be substituted. What (and who) you can bring onto site and use in these jobs is very restricted for obvious reasons. Same goes for any site where the cost of an error during construction would become hugely magnified or even catastrophic down the line. Tunnels, large structures, rail, bridges, etc... FWIW, Health and safety on a large infrastructural project includes health and safety of all the users of that piece of infrastructure for its entire lifetime. The recent disaster in Genoa illustrates why this is critical, and why more stringent QA is being adopted across the construction sector in recent years. While you might be ok with a tradesman showing up to your door with knock-off equipment, the same is no longer true on large construction projects.

Sorry but 'serial numbers against operating staff' is not proof of ownership. The rest of what you say I'm sure is true but irrelevant.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

You don't need any annual audit. Storing serial numbers on a blockchain provides large scale decentralised proof of ownership. You go to buy a 2nd hand item, you check proof of ownership. You go to list an item on a market site, you need to provide proof of ownership. You take a piece of equipment onto a site, you provide proof of ownership. This isn't exactly rocket science, nor is it particularly expensive. You simply need to embed the serial number in such a way that replacing it is expensive (remember removing it serves no purpose), RFID is one simple, inexpensive and robust mechanism here but there are others. For very low end equipment something as simple as a barcode would work. It is worth remembering that those involved are paying large multiples of the cost here in insurance already, not to mention down-time when equipment does get stolen.

As for annual audits of equipment being ridiculous, most companies over a certain size already so this. This typically involves placing asset tags on any company owned property above a certain value and scanning it as part of an equipment audit / stock take.

Most companies keep track of their equipment - that is not an audit though which is a check that assets exist / are owned by an independent party.

I just don't see what you're proposing take off - it requires the purchaser to care that the seller has proper title (it is possible to seek proof of ownership currently but who ever does it except with qr sales) for the owner to go to the trouble of registering it on blockchain - most people don't even register their purchase in order to activate the warranty.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

Sorry but 'serial numbers against operating staff' is not proof of ownership. The rest of what you say I'm sure is true but irrelevant.

It is as good as proof, in that the use of the equipment serial no X is logged as being used by contractor Y on a given date by site engineering staff. If the equipment is stolen, calibration or servicing certs forged, the contractor is going to be in breach of contract and a world of trouble. If the equipment is stolen, trying to get it calibrated and serviced is going to raise alarm bells. The risk simply isn't worth the reward for most companies and the level of equipment theft is already that high that using stolen equipment is highly risky. Where blockchain comes into play is that you can amalgamate a huge number of proprietary blacklists of stolen goods into a single open system that can be trusted and easily accessed. Currently, stolen equipment tends to leave the country to avoid detection. If any potential buyer for a good can quickly and easily check whether an item they're considering buying is logged as stolen, they will do so and the stolen item becomes difficult to sell. Once a system like this is in place, there is no reasonable defence for being in possession of stolen property and it thus massively devalues return versus risk for theft.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

I just don't see what you're proposing take off - it requires the purchaser to care that the seller has proper title (it is possible to seek proof of ownership currently but who ever does it except with qr sales) for the owner to go to the trouble of registering it on blockchain - most people don't even register their purchase in order to activate the warranty.

People don't seek proof of ownership in many transactions currently as it is difficult to do and the risk of being done for receipt of stolen goods is tiny. If it was easy to do, and easy for anyone else to check whether an item in your possession was stolen, movement of stolen goods for any item that could carry an immutable serial number would likely collapse.

As for a purchaser not caring, I think you're deluding yourself. Most people wouldn't knowingly buy stolen goods, and those that would only do so on the basis that there is little risk attached in doing so. Increase that risk and few would take it. Worth remembering that buying stolen goods is a criminal offence.

Irish Statute Book wrote:

Where a person has in his or her possession stolen property in such circumstances (including purchase of the property at a price below its market value) that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

It is as good as proof, in that the use of the equipment serial no X is logged as being used by contractor Y on a given date by site engineering staff. If the equipment is stolen, calibration or servicing certs forged, the contractor is going to be in breach of contract and a world of trouble. If the equipment is stolen, trying to get it calibrated and serviced is going to raise alarm bells. The risk simply isn't worth the reward for most companies and the level of equipment theft is already that high that using stolen equipment is highly risky. Where blockchain comes into play is that you can amalgamate a huge number of proprietary blacklists of stolen goods into a single open system that can be trusted and easily accessed. Currently, stolen equipment tends to leave the country to avoid detection. If any potential buyer for a good can quickly and easily check whether an item they're considering buying is logged as stolen, they will do so and the stolen item becomes difficult to sell. Once a system like this is in place, there is no reasonable defence for being in possession of stolen property and it thus massively devalues return versus risk for theft.

There's a number of problems with what you're suggesting, for example, heavy machinery will increasingly be lent out via platforms such as Dozer. The user is not always and probably rarely is the owner.

Everything you've said indicates the focus of the main contractor is H&S and quality control, not ownership.

Since ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked, blockchain which proves ownership is unlikely to see much traffic.

A better use case of Blockchain is settlement of investment trades, custody of investments, dividend settlements, share register maintenance etc. Is any crypto in the loop for this in a way that could justify its market cap?

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

As for a purchaser not caring, I think you're deluding yourself. Most people wouldn't knowingly buy stolen goods, and those that would only do so on the basis that there is little risk attached in doing so. Increase that risk and few would take it. Worth remembering that buying stolen goods is a criminal offence.

People don't care enough to check ownership which can currently be readily done by requesting/ checking receipts etc before purchasing.

Pussyhands

So let's say thief coin does what you say it does.

Why can't a manufacturer just put a chip into every piece of equipment they manufacturer that can't be hacked and edited without the owner editing it?

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

There's a number of problems with what you're suggesting, for example, heavy machinery will increasingly be lent out via platforms such as Dozer. The user is not always and probably rarely is the owner.

Everything you've said indicates the focus of the main contractor is H&S and quality control, not ownership.

Since ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked, blockchain which proves ownership is unlikely to see much traffic.

A better use case of Blockchain is settlement of investment trades, custody of investments, dividend settlements, share register maintenance etc. Is any crypto in the loop for this in a way that could justify its market cap?

Again wrong. Heavy equipment theft is estimated at a billion dollar per annum problem, where equipment tracking through a national register is an often touted solution (source). Other than heavy plant, theft of industrial construction equipment and measurement tools such as scanners, total stations and GPS is a massive problem. I've been to three conferences this year already where it was the subject of a presentation (e.g.). Ownership is being checked increasingly regularly at a number of different levels as other anti-theft measures are failing. This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated. Among my own client base I'm seeing reports of such theft most weeks with recovery rates quite low and re-insurance crippling. To say that ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked shows a total ignorance of this industry.

smacl

Pussyhands wrote: »

So let's say thief coin does what you say it does.

Why can't a manufacturer just put a chip into every piece of equipment they manufacturer that can't be hacked and edited without the owner editing it?

This already happens and results in multiple closed lists of stolen equipment being poorly maintained by manufacturers who actually benefit from the theft as it typically results in a replacement sale. If you go for a blockchain solution it is open and vendor neutral, such that it serves the owner of the equipment rather than the manufacturer. You have a black chain entry associated with the piece of equipment that is only re-assigned when the item is sold and can only be re-assigned by the current owner. Most records in asset tracking systems boil down to who, what, where, when. Who owns it, what is it, where was it when. Make that record immutable and open for a large scale system and you solve quite a large number of related problems.

JohnnyFlash

smacl wrote: »

This already happens and results in multiple closed lists of stolen equipment being poorly maintained by manufacturers who actually benefit from the theft as it typically results in a replacement sale. If you go for a blockchain solution it is open and vendor neutral, such that it serves the owner of the equipment rather than the manufacturer. You have a black chain entry associated with the piece of equipment that is only re-assigned when the item is sold and can only be re-assigned by the current owner. Most records in asset tracking systems boil down to who, what, where, when. Who owns it, what is it, where was it when. Make that record immutable and open for a large scale system and you solve quite a large number of related problems.

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

If the coin gains traction and demand outstrips liquid supply, price goes up. If opposite, price goes down.

If you want to actually use the coin yourself then buy as cheap as you can and think of it as a bulk discount for the future if the price shoots up. If you just want to hoard the coin like most speculators you're adding to the upwards price pressure. The cost of the service will stay the same in fiat but become cheaper in terms of coin spent if bought when the coin was cheap.

e.g. There's an ICO for ShítcoinFlash for $1 per token. New entrants that buy ETH for this terrible sounding ICO are paying $1 so at current prices they get 289 tokens per ETH. If a user bought ETH @ $10 their effective cost per ShítcoinFlash is $0.035.
If you buy a good idea early you get to benefit from demand outstripping liquid supply.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

Again wrong. Heavy equipment theft is estimated at a billion dollar per annum problem, where equipment tracking through a national register is an often touted solution (source). Other than heavy plant, theft of industrial construction equipment and measurement tools such as scanners, total stations and GPS is a massive problem. I've been to three conferences this year already where it was the subject of a presentation (e.g.). Ownership is being checked increasingly regularly at a number of different levels as other anti-theft measures are failing. This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated. Among my own client base I'm seeing reports of such theft most weeks with recovery rates quite low and re-insurance crippling. To say that ownership is rarely checked nor needs to be checked shows a total ignorance of this industry.

You explain that theft is a big problem as if i'm disputing that fact . Im not. Can you stick to the point being discussed rather than argue some strawman i.e whether proof of ownership is something that is currently being checked on an ongoing basis and whether Blockchain and crypto could play a part in this.

You state that 'This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated' - what does this mean in the context of checking title? Sounds like they're just doing a regular service

kaymin

grindle wrote: »

If the coin gains traction and demand outstrips liquid supply, price goes up. If opposite, price goes down.

If you want to actually use the coin yourself then buy as cheap as you can and think of it as a bulk discount for the future if the price shoots up. If you just want to hoard the coin like most speculators you're adding to the upwards price pressure. The cost of the service will stay the same in fiat but become cheaper in terms of coin spent if bought when the coin was cheap.

e.g. There's an ICO for ShítcoinFlash for $1 per token. New entrants that buy ETH for this terrible sounding ICO are paying $1 so at current prices they get 289 tokens per ETH. If a user bought ETH @ $10 their effective cost per ShítcoinFlash is $0.035.
If you buy a good idea early you get to benefit from demand outstripping liquid supply.

This is where I'm confused - why couldn't / wouldn't heavy industry participants just create their own coin to run the title verification Blockchain at minimal cost to maintain i.e. the coins collected might be counted up at the end of the year and used to reduce the next years subscription cost (their share of the cost of maintaining the register) it could be facilitated / operated by the CIF.

Granted there is set up costs and expertise involved but it would be a tiny percentage of the cost of crypto coins currently being traded.

smacl

kaymin wrote: »

You state that 'This includes manufactures and service partners checking equipment being serviced and calibrated' - what does this mean in the context of checking title? Sounds like they're just doing a regular service

Manufacturers and their service partners tend to maintain blacklists of equipment reported stolen. A piece of kit comes of for servicing, its serial number gets checked against this list and acted on if shows positive. It is a very weak solution compared to a blockchain, as it depends on maintaining multiple databases across numerous vendors, not to mention the goodwill of all involved. As already pointed out the best interests of the manufacturer and their customers are not that well aligned here. You seem to be struggling to grasp something pretty basic here.

smacl

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

And what would being an early investor in the crypto coin this blockchain company created give a person? Where’s the reward offering based on the coin?

In addition to what Grindle has already covered, in this scenario you essentially need a coin / ledger entry for every physical piece of equipment covered and gas / transaction charge for every change of ownership. Value is in the use case, which is where it should be.

grindle

kaymin wrote: »

This is where I'm confused - why couldn't / wouldn't heavy industry participants just create their own coin to run the title verification Blockchain at minimal cost to maintain i.e. the coins collected might be counted up at the end of the year and used to reduce the next years subscription cost (their share of the cost of maintaining the register) it could be facilitated / operated by the CIF.

Maybe they set up their own private blockchain because that's "good enough" for their needs but it seems they should stick with a standard database if they don't want it to be decentralised and trustworthy - the point of a blockchain is verifiable truth. CIF running a node might be trustworthy to CIF but when that equipment needs to be sold and/or moved from their jurisdiction why would anybody trust their chain/node?

kaymin wrote: »

Granted there is set up costs and expertise involved but it would be a tiny percentage of the cost of crypto coins currently being traded.

Not sure what you mean here. Let's say IOTA matures enough for this usecase, they become decentralised, etc etc - CIF or Suir Engineering or whomever may want to use this to track their crap don't have to buy and spend whole units of MIOTA to use it every time something is scanned, they'll get 1 million uses out of 1 single MIOTA with current supply and that supply will have a kind of stock split should IOTA's price rise too high for micro txs to be feasible whereby owners get 10 or 100 units per 1 pre-fork.

I'd hazard a guess that if some company wanted to set this up it would be easier and cheaper for them buy their RFID tags & scanners and incorporate an existing project (that will hopefully some day be decentralised and fully trustworthy) rather than buying all that same equipment, hiring a niche blockchain dev to upkeep their fork. Blockchain dev = megabucks and the more niche the chain the higher that cost will be - which devs familiar with IOTA development and implementation would be capable enough AND willing to accept anything less than a couple hundred thousand per year? Or more.
Having one dev working on this private blockchain sounds like security suicide, they will make mistakes that will prove costly so now you need a team of devs to test your blockchain who'll want a shítload of money from this company or organisation which used to have too much money on their hands because they thought running a private chain would be easier than buying some tokens currently valued @ $0.49 ( :eek: holy crap thank christ I sold that) which grants them a million uses.

kaymin

smacl wrote: »

Manufacturers and their service partners tend to maintain blacklists of equipment reported stolen. A piece of kit comes of for servicing, its serial number gets checked against this list and acted on if shows positive. It is a very weak solution compared to a blockchain, as it depends on maintaining multiple databases across numerous vendors, not to mention the goodwill of all involved. As already pointed out the best interests of the manufacturer and their customers are not that well aligned here. You seem to be struggling to grasp something pretty basic here.

I'm not buying it. If I leave my car, lawnmower, motorbike in for a service, noone checks ownership or the serial number and that's also the case with the vast vast majority of heavy machinery. If I called up this crowd, for example, to ask if they check ownership of the machines / trucks they service I'd say I'd be laughed at.
http://fjsplant.ie/about

kaymin

grindle wrote: »

Maybe they set up their own private blockchain because that's "good enough" for their needs but it seems they should stick with a standard database if they don't want it to be decentralised and trustworthy - the point of a blockchain is verifiable truth. CIF running a node might be trustworthy to CIF but when that equipment needs to be sold and/or moved from their jurisdiction why would anybody trust their chain/node?

Not sure what you mean here. Let's say IOTA matures enough for this usecase, they become decentralised, etc etc - CIF or Suir Engineering or whomever may want to use this to track their crap don't have to buy and spend whole units of MIOTA to use it every time something is scanned, they'll get 1 million uses out of 1 single MIOTA with current supply and that supply will have a kind of stock split should IOTA's price rise too high for micro txs to be feasible whereby owners get 10 or 100 units per 1 pre-fork.

I'd hazard a guess that if some company wanted to set this up it would be easier and cheaper for them buy their RFID tags & scanners and incorporate an existing project (that will hopefully some day be decentralised and fully trustworthy) rather than buying all that same equipment, hiring a niche blockchain dev to upkeep their fork. Blockchain dev = megabucks and the more niche the chain the higher that cost will be - which devs familiar with IOTA development and implementation would be capable enough AND willing to accept anything less than a couple hundred thousand per year? Or more.
Having one dev working on this private blockchain sounds like security suicide, they will make mistakes that will prove costly so now you need a team of devs to test your blockchain who'll want a shítload of money from this company or organisation which used to have too much money on their hands because they thought running a private chain would be easier than buying some tokens currently valued @ $0.49 ( :eek: holy crap thank christ I sold that) which grants them a million uses.

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

Pintman Paddy Losty

kaymin wrote: »

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

Pipe dream is right kaynin. These lads are living in crypto cuckoo land.

grindle

kaymin wrote: »

Sounds like a pipedream. It's the equivalent of me building a Facebook clone and selling the rights to user data for billions before I have any users.

I don't get the analogy tbh - IOTA are providing a product for use which is their network, for cheap. The market cap being some stupid valuation doesn't really come into it, they just have to have a working product that transfers data securely without fault and if it's cheaper and/or more convenient than the company's current method of tracking their inventory it'll be used.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Pipe dream is right kaynin. These lads are living in crypto cuckoo land.

Constructive criticism or don't bother please.

kaymin

grindle wrote: »

I don't get the analogy tbh - IOTA are providing a product for use which is their network, for cheap. The market cap being some stupid valuation doesn't really come into it, they just have to have a working product that transfers data securely without fault and if it's cheaper and/or more convenient than the company's current method of tracking their inventory it'll be used.

Isn't IOTA is just fee free, coinless version of Blockchain?

The point is, ownership of machinery is rarely checked so why would you think everyone would jump onboard a Blockchain or tangle or whatever to start verifying ownership of equipment that crosses their path?

grindle

kaymin wrote: »

The point is, ownership of machinery is rarely checked so why would you think everyone would jump onboard a Blockchain or tangle or whatever to start verifying ownership of equipment that crosses their path?

I worked for Suir Engineering when they were hooking Vistakon up and every item not typical to a toolbox had to be signed in and out by us with a guy there whose job it was to verify who was taking what and some apprentice who had to fill in for him when he was on a break - I dunno if that kind of shít has changed or how it's changed but it seems easier to have RFID tags on workers and on tools to do the job.

It's not necessarily just about transferring from owner 1 to owner 2, it's more likely to be about keeping track of your own stock as an asset for your financial reports with less scope for somebody slyly robbing without a human noticing.

makeorbrake

TallyRand wrote: »

On your last point I would argue you do actually trust governments, if you didn’t you would surely liquadate all state related ties and bank accounts, democracy and capitalism have their bad side but best of a bad bunch id say. Otherwise don’t have any fiat and live off crypto my man

Rubbish. We are all plugged in to the FIAT world as you and I and everyone else knows. You realise the reason why Bitcoin was created? If you don't - google it.

We bailed out banks here. You speak of capitalism. No problem (crypto is a very very broad church but socialist isnt really what most of them are). Where was the capitalism in the U.S. in 2008-9, in Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and elsewhere when it came to the banks??

Is our current governance better than what went before? In some ways, definitely. Does it have shortcomings - of course it does. Is it right or wrong to look at addressing some of those shortcomings? The shortcomings crypto is trying to solve (and it has wider implications than just core financial/currency aspects) relate to trust - the abuse of trust - and unless you put something in the water, you're unlikely to change the way human beings behave in this respect. You can take another approach though and put an immutable ledger in place that is decentralised and assumes NO TRUST. Crypto should be open to critique like anything else - and with it being an emerging field of course it has plenty of issues to clear up if it's to have an impact. However, a lot of the sledging is coming from those with a vested interest or latent ignorance.

Your point is completely different to what you quoted me on. You're basically saying if you like crypto so much, why dont you push off and ilve off it full time. I will use it given every opportunity but I'm pragmatic - not a 'true believer'....but the extreme views are very much on BOTH sides of the debate!

ninebeanrows

How low can cryptos go?

I think ether 50$ is within 3 months and bitcoin standard price in the 500-750$ range.

makeorbrake

Weathercheck wrote: »

How low can cryptos go?

I think ether 50$ is within 3 months and bitcoin standard price in the 500-750$ range.

Its all entirely speculative. However, how have you arrived at those figures? I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong but interested to know what moulded your opinion.

el diablo

makeorbrake wrote: »

Its all entirely speculative. However, how have you arrived at those figures? I'm not going to say that you're right or wrong but interested to know what moulded your opinion.

I'd also like to hear the reasoning (if any) behind these bizarre predictions. I think both ETH and BTC will go lower but I'm 100% certain we won't see those levels. :cool:

Pintman Paddy Losty

grindle wrote: »

Constructive criticism or don't bother please.

Apologies. Was on the gargle last night. Posting when I shudda been sleeping.

JohnnyFlash

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Apologies. Was on the gargle last night. Posting when I shudda been sleeping.

Pintman Paddy Losty wrote: »

Apologies. Was on the gargle last night. Posting when I shudda been sleeping.

I put in a savage session myself on Friday night, Paddy. Drank 13 pints on Guinness. Still not right.

Must be why I’m still struggling to get the idea behind coin ownership and what it gives the investor. Say some bunch of Chinese buckos create Livercoin. The white paper is a bit vague, but they say this coin will become the main way on the planet for applying for a liver transplant. I have a savage few days on the drink, and decide I better stick me name on a list for a new liver. The blockchain has been decided as the extremely inefficient way to store me application.

So I log into some website, fill out the application form, and hit submit. Good stuff. The world now has a completely non refutable record of my application for a new liver. But the part I don’t get is what benefit that gives to shrewd and canny investors who bought these coins belonging to this company, and why holding on to them so they increase in value would be of benefit to them. Like what relationship has my application for a new liver have to them being able to buy a Lambo at some stage? Why would the coin increase in value because I made a new liver application?

Like I said, I’m as thick as two short planks, so hoping one of the crypto gurus here might break that down into simple language so dunces like meself and Paddy can understand. Vague auld stuff like ‘inherent utility’ and ‘price of gas’ doesn’t really sink in with me.

smacl

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

I put in a savage session myself on Friday night, Paddy. Drank 13 pints on Guinness. Still not right.
'
'
Like I said, I’m as thick as two short planks

Fair enough, sounds like one thing is leading to another. Maybe yourself and Paddy are on the wrong forum, this one might suit better. Bit bizarre showing faux concern for those here wasting money when you píss that much against the wall to the obvious detriment of your health.

JohnnyFlash

smacl wrote: »

Fair enough, sounds like one thing is leading to another. Maybe yourself and Paddy are on the wrong forum, this one might suit better. Bit bizarre showing faux concern for those here wasting money when you píss that much against the wall to the obvious detriment of your health.

Showing a bit of faux concern there yourself, Smacl. Ara, I’ve plenty of money to waste. Too much of it to be honest. Not enough for a lambo mind you. A rattle of pints every so often is good for a lad. Stops them being so serious.

GarIT

I don't know about the many others reading this thread but I'm getting sick of the nonsense, two pages of posts now and not a sentence worth reading between them.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Must be why I’m still struggling to get the idea behind coin ownership and what it gives the investor. Say some bunch of Chinese buckos create Livercoin. The white paper is a bit vague, but they say this coin will become the main way on the planet for applying for a liver transplant. I have a savage few days on the drink, and decide I better stick me name on a list for a new liver. The blockchain has been decided as the extremely inefficient way to store me application.

So I log into some website, fill out the application form, and hit submit. Good stuff. The world now has a completely non refutable record of my application for a new liver. But the part I don’t get is what benefit that gives to shrewd and canny investors who bought these coins belonging to this company, and why holding on to them so they increase in value would be of benefit to them. Like what relationship has my application for a new liver have to them being able to buy a Lambo at some stage? Why would the coin increase in value because I made a new liver application?

I'll try my best to make this as layman friendly as possible.

We'll have to presume that there's some great market for liver transplants, not really sure how the economy of liver transplants looks but we'll have to imagine a world where black market untraceable livers are a serious threat to the liver transplant economy, possibly by already being diseased livers like your own. And my own, I'm fond of a tipple.

Seeing this threat, the liver transplant businesses of the world need a solution for tracing good livers and come across this blockchain liver-tracer! They do a cost analysis and see that using this platform which allows the tracing of livers will save money versus the lawsuit fallout and future health costs of giving people dodgy livers. Every time a tokenised liver passes through the system (I'm not designing this single-faceted shítcoin for you so don't expect an actual profitable idea if we're only sticking with livers) is a time when that token or multiples of that token are bought to verify the liver's authenticity (this LiverToken team is going to have to know the cost of authenticating livers in the current system and they'll want to undercut any competitor).
The cost of using the service is always the same but depending on the liquid supply of LiverToken your health provider will either be buying more of the token or less of the token - doesn't matter to them, they get the same product for the same price unless they're extremely supportive of the idea and got in early and it was a success, in which case their hoarding of LiverTokens will enable them to gain cheaper access to this liver authentification service while the price is rising.

For the average speculator if they bought LiverToken and it fails they get fúck all, or they lose money when they sell. If LiverToken takes off and there's a constant demand (I really don't understand how you guys don't get this - it's supply and demand, very basic concept) which outstrips liquid supply then it's price rises in the marketplace and you can start selling for profit. No harm done to anybody, you believed in an idea early on, believed it would gain traction, some company that's apparently professional enough to count every hospital as it's customer gets to develop their platform and cut costs for an industry that milks profits like no other, it gains traction, demand outstrips supply and you get to sell into that demand.

You should probably make your LiverToken slightly less narrow in scope, even OrganToken isn't wide enough of an umbrella imo.

The bolded part of your comment - I can't fathom why you think holding onto a scarce in demand asset wouldn't be worthwhile. This is probably the millionth time I've had to post this but if you own something which is in demand and low liquid supply it's price goes higher. Are you aware that in-demand products and services get higher in price? Vinyl? Concert tickets? Hotel prices, AirBnB? Uber? Restaurants? Property - oh my god especially property on this island.
The main difference being that when you're paying a higher price for those things the consumer is actively being scalped, with LiverToken whomever's buying it at the time is paying the same amount in fiat for the service whether they're buying 100 LVT @ $1 a piece or 1000 @ $0.10 a piece, but an early buyer benefits from widespread utilisation driving the price up.
My mind boggles that you can't grasp this concept. Consider my flabber fully gasted.

JohnnyFlash

grindle wrote: »

I'll try my best to make this as layman friendly as possible.

We'll have to presume that there's some great market for liver transplants, not really sure how the economy of liver transplants looks but we'll have to imagine a world where black market untraceable livers are a serious threat to the liver transplant economy, possibly by already being diseased livers like your own. And my own, I'm fond of a tipple.

Seeing this threat, the liver transplant businesses of the world need a solution for tracing good livers and come across this blockchain liver-tracer! They do a cost analysis and see that using this platform which allows the tracing of livers will save money versus the lawsuit fallout and future health costs of giving people dodgy livers. Every time a tokenised liver passes through the system (I'm not designing this single-faceted shítcoin for you so don't expect an actual profitable idea if we're only sticking with livers) is a time when that token or multiples of that token are bought to verify the liver's authenticity (this LiverToken team is going to have to know the cost of authenticating livers in the current system and they'll want to undercut any competitor).
The cost of using the service is always the same but depending on the liquid supply of LiverToken your health provider will either be buying more of the token or less of the token - doesn't matter to them, they get the same product for the same price unless they're extremely supportive of the idea and got in early and it was a success, in which case their hoarding of LiverTokens will enable them to gain cheaper access to this liver authentification service while the price is rising.

For the average speculator if they bought LiverToken and it fails they get fúck all, or they lose money when they sell. If LiverToken takes off and there's a constant demand (I really don't understand how you guys don't get this - it's supply and demand, very basic concept) which outstrips liquid supply then it's price rises in the marketplace and you can start selling for profit. No harm done to anybody, you believed in an idea early on, believed it would gain traction, some company that's apparently professional enough to count every hospital as it's customer gets to develop their platform and cut costs for an industry that milks profits like no other, it gains traction, demand outstrips supply and you get to sell into that demand.

You should probably make your LiverToken slightly less narrow in scope, even OrganToken isn't wide enough of an umbrella imo.

The bolded part of your comment - I can't fathom why you think holding onto a scarce in demand asset wouldn't be worthwhile. This is probably the millionth time I've had to post this but if you own something which is in demand and low liquid supply it's price goes higher. Are you aware that in-demand products and services get higher in price? Vinyl? Concert ticy kets? Hotel prices, AirBnB? Uber? Restaurants? Property - oh my god especially property on this island.
The main difference being that when you're paying a higher price for those things the consumer is actively being scalped, with LiverToken whomever's buying it at the time is paying the same amount in fiat for the service whether they're buying 100 LVT @ $1 a piece or 1000 @ $0.10 a piece, but an early buyer benefits from widespread utilisation driving the price up.
My mind boggles that you can't grasp this concept. Consider my flabber fully gasted.

That's a very honest reply. And I genuinely tried to understand it. Good man. My value is with me liver though. That's the commodity in some terrible libertarian economy. Or socialist economy. :eek:



The value is my liver. Not the coin associated with me logging onto a website and suggesting I'd like to pay more for a new one. I own Livercoin. What's the narrative here?

makeorbrake

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

grindle

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

My value is with me liver though. That's the commodity in some terrible libertarian economy. Or socialist economy. :eek:

The value is my liver. Not the coin associated with me logging onto a website and suggesting I'd like to pay more for a new one. I own Livercoin. What's the narrative here?

Not sure what you're on about here - if you're applying for a new liver it means your old liver is fúcked and virtually valueless. Try to express yourself more clearly. Libertarian economy? Socialist economy? Both seem negative to you but they're opposites. Where abouts in the middle of those two economies do you suppose that your old useless liver suddenly has a value? What's the narrative here? Are you expecting an entire economy to start throwing all the good livers at everybody who hasn't taken care of their bad liver without trying to trace where the liver is coming from or going to? Because that's what this service would do but you make it sound like there's no value in making sure livers are properly traced - they are currently traced btw, I'm not sure if that's a surprise to you or not but it seems like something that would disgust you and start making words like socialism or libertarianism pop out of your mouth like you have a verbal tic.

If you're interacting with some health service who thinks LiverToken improves some situation and makes it cheaper, it'll be used. If you own that token outside of the health service then you've place a bet on this idea gaining traction. If you're right and it gets used by everybody and the token economics allow for it then the price will rise. This doesn't affect your old dying liver nor your shiny, new, soon to be wasted liver, this shítcoin of yours is literally a liver-tracker. It's not a great idea but it's the best you could come up with and I admire that you were brave in the attempt.

makeorbrake wrote: »

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

Lurkers who never interact make up the majority of every community & I'm hoping lurkers with half a brain can see there's no attempt being made to understand, only attempts to tar with populist bullshíttery - how socialist and libertarian economies sprang into the argument and as negatives I'll never know, the terrible state of the current health system or economy is thanks to socialising capitalist's problems, purely socialist or libertarian economies would never have provided that soft landing to the leech-like capitalists who stole tens of billions from just one single country. For as long as the mods don't consider it trolling I'll try to do my best to consider their odd mumblings, surprise conflations and further coincidental (surely?) evasion of arguments as being genuine.
Patience is a virtue and all that. #FeelingSoVirtuous

JohnnyFlash

makeorbrake wrote: »

@grindle : I was slow to heed the warning of others on this - but eventually I got there. Just ignore.

I actively welcome the contrarian view - it's healthy. However, that doesn't mean we have to entertain podge and rodge.

It’s that sort of head-in-the-sand attitude that has crypto investors lose over 90% of their money since December. Insurmountable evidence that crypto is a scam, not an investment, a shïtty business model. Tether, the environment, the EOS fiasco, not a single scalable business so far, exit scams, SEC investigations, Nobel prize winning economists telling you it’s a scam, nvidia saying it’s dead as a business for them, Harvard CS professor saying blockchain is the worst concept he has seen in 40 years of research into the scene.

The whole thing is a mess. Listen, people lost money. It’s only money. Continuing to suggest people invest in it is fundamentally dishonest though. That’s not right. It’s not nice being a bagholder, but I’ll continue to do ma ting around here in getting readers not to invest in stupid coins that conmen magicked out of thin air. Being greedy and of below average intelligence is no excuse for wanting to lure new people in to this horrific pyramid scheme.

Grumpypants

Yawn

JohnnyFlash

grindle wrote: »

It's not a great idea but it's the best you could come up with and I admire that you were brave in the attempt

Thanks Grindle. I’m as thick as two short planks so it’s mighty to get a vote of confidence like that from a smart bucko such as yourself. I might change my mind about this crypto stuff when I see a single viable business using it. In the interim I’m very happy I didn’t get caught up in the hype around this and suffered >90% loss on investment as a result. What would I know though! New paradigm I suppose. A really slow database that uses massive amounts of electricity is going to change the world.