http://www.wired.com/2015/12/big-te ch-joins-big-banks-to-cr

>>1004954
Im not going to get into the 1 million ways this could end up in the garbage bin.

>>1004954
This is what I have been saying for months. All the Bitcoin enthusiasts were so wet over major banks and companies looking into blockchain tech, thinking this means Bitcoin will blow up. Guess what? It's not Bitcoin. It will never be Bitcoin. This quote sums it best:

>It’s notable, however, that IBM and its cohorts ar creating a new distributed ledger—rather than embracing the blockchain itself. In backing a new project, they can exert more control over how it’s built and how it is used.

The main point here is control. Major companies and banks will never relinquish control over to another entity, especially where there is profit involved.

>>1004977
How is it distributed when it's centralized?

Logic fail.

This is just XRP all over again. Nothing to see here.

>>1005062
Who said anything about distribution? You are not even in the same book, let alone the same page. It will even be less distributed than XRP, because companies/banks will retain 100% of whatever token will be used to maintain their personal ledgers, then real-time settlement across a global ledger. You are under some assumption that this has to be "fair" and "decentralized".

>>1004977
>The main point here is control. Major companies and banks will never relinquish control over to another entity, especially where there is profit involved.

So? They can have as much conto as they want their Leger, doesn't mean people are gonna use it. I'll stick with bitcoin thanks.

>>1005096
Wat? I think I am going to ignore this comment entirely as it would take at least 5 more responses to bring you up to speed to what us grown ups are talking about.

>>1005106
No, please try to "bring me up to speed". Explain to me the reason why I would ever use a centralized leger made by major banks and companies when the blockchain and bitcoin works just fine?

>>1005160
Sigh. I'll give you the simple answer. If you don't use banks or credit cards or debit cards or prepaid visas or rewards cards or loyalty points or coupons then you are absolutely right. This won't affect you and you will never use blockchain tech that isn't Bitcoin. Happy?

>>1005165
Fair point, but those services has had decades to develop and integrate into society. Bitcoin won't compete at that level yet, give it time it could replace those services to some extent. Also I would absolutely love for banks to integrate bitcoin and it's blockchain, but as we can see that won't happen anytime soon

>>1005192
>>1005160
The point isn't only that major banks and companies are making their own "competitor" to BitCoin, it's that this puts the nail in the coffin for those companies to ever accept BitCoin as a payment method, and they'll put the time and money in to make sure others don't accept BitCoin either.

>>1005210
This

>>1005080
Did you even read what you quoted?

>It’s notable, however, that IBM and its cohorts ar(e) creating a new distributed ledger
>distributed ledger

>>1005229
You think this means distributed "among the people". It really means distributed among them. They will distribute tokens as needed to each entity for thier own ledgers.
>i.e. IBM will have an IBMcoin (or w/e they deem to call it)

>>1005210

You will still have to trust these companies regardless of what tech they use. They can arbitrarily freeze your account and keep a record of your transactions.

Bitcoin is too strong and important for a cashless society where a digital native currency which functions pseudo-anonymously. No appeal to authority. The political ideology has a far greater component to adoption than just it's substituent technology.

So the whole point of a blockchain is that compute power is pretty evenly distributed among regular people, making it both expensive and impractical to attack since bitcoin essentially operates by votes of CPU power you would have to be in control of a majority of the world's computing power. So how the hell are they going to keep from having 51% attacks run on them if this is supposed to be their private little hustle?

Did they really get memed into a buzzword that badly?

>>1005232
Like I said earlier. XRP all over again.

>>1005236
Because each company/bank/entity will own 100% of its own ledger like they currently do. How do you propose someone launches a 51% attack if it's a private blockchain?

>>1005235
Yes, but the established market won't allow to use it. It has no value if it's not accepted as a form of payment. It might as well be World of Warcraft gold in that you can exchange it for USD, but its value is fairly low because it's not accepted on its own.

BitCoin's price is so high because everyone thought it would be the next market. Now that we know these companies won't accept it, it will not be.

>>1005235
People already trust these companies. The majority of people use banks. What extra trust do you think is needed for people who have have literally entrusted banks with all thier money for thier whole life? These aren't fly by night startups. These areh the most respected and trusted institutions in the world. If anything Bitcoin should be vying for even a fraction of the trust that banks have garnered for themselves.

>>1005246
>I can't buy groceries with it. Therefore it's useless.

Typical nocoiner argument.

>>1004954
Stfu this has already been happening

>>1005249
>The majority of people use banks

No, most of the population is unbanked. With bitcoin there is no appeal to authority to participate. In a global market with rising economies in developing nations with internet you can easily see that bitcoin has a massive upside.

>>1005238
Pretty much. Only XRP is vaguely associated with banks and Google. Also, only small banks have opted to use Ripple. None of the larger banks can touch it because some of the tokens were distributed out and it carries too much counterparty risk. They would rather just create thier own privatized centralized network.

>>1005253
And that's why they are trying to utilize blockchain technology to reach the unbanked. Bitcoin has done a poor job of it so the field is left wide open.

>>1005250
Which is exactly correct. The entrusted value of BitCoin was that, in the future, it would be a usable currency. Now we know it will not be. Once this public knowledge and understanding goes out, BitCoin is dead.

>>1005258
No, again you misunderstand.

To participate in bitcoin, accept payment and pay with it, you can do so for free without asking for permission.

To use a bank you need government ID, and permanent residence.

Having banks adopt blockchain tech will not stop governments from intervening;terrorist funding, purchasing contraband and data mining.

you fail to grasp this simple concept that bitcoin functions without an appeal to authority,

>>1004954
>>1004977
Hey it's that muhhamid guy 5 reasons not to buy into the Bitcoin hype.


I need you guys to take note every time this new generation shill pops up a huge pump in Bitcoins is about to occur.

It looks like were hitting 500 soon apparently.

>>1005259
>what is gyft?

There your whole argument defeated with 3 words. Now away with you nocoiner.

>>1005241
>software gets leaked
>some anon installs it on his botnet
>the bank's assets are now stored cryptographically rather than being kept as cash in a vault
>literally steal everything the bank owns
>the transactions can't be reversed
>gameover.jpg

>>1005253
Less then 40% of people use banks, but in order to have a cashless society and tracking whatever you need something as simple as Bitcoin.

>>1005273
Or for a Slaanesh-tier twist
>send all the not-bitcoins to an invalid address that nobody owns, destroying them forever

>>1005264
I think you're the one who misunderstands. Pulling money in and out of Bitcoin is an almost impossible task for the unbanked. Sending Bitcoin? Fine. Using Bitcoin at merchants online? Fine. Actually using Bitcoin to pay regular bills like rent, utilities, car payments, gas, etc.? Not available. This is where they need to sign up for an account at a Bitcoin exchange and be able to transfer the bitcoins into their native currency. Bitcoin exchanges in general ask for more identifying information than banks do. Then guess what? You have to link your bank account to do a transfer. Oops. The only other option is to buy and sell bitcoins on localbitcoins at a huge premium. By that time, what is the point? You really expect people in 3rd world countries are going to flock to Bitcoin when they don't even have the means available to open a bank account? This is a really improbable scenario.

>>1005273
Software? Do you not understand how blockchains work?

>>1005279
>Pulling money in and out of Bitcoin is an almost impossible task for the unbanked

So your solution is... Banks....

Brilliant.

File: tmp_3477-nigga-snail-finger-funny-pictures-8415151799789684.jpg (48KB, 500x514px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 500x514px

>>1005281
If you control more than half the network, you can make the blockchain say whatever you damn well please. Leaking the software would allow you to add your own malicious nodes.

>>1005288
>So using a crypto controlled by banks will be easier?
Not really. Which is why banks are even having these discussions. It will take some innovation along the lines of mPesa for them to broaden their goals. The unbanked are still unbanked for a reason. Mostly because they don't have access to technology. I think smartphones will be the key to bridging that gap in the future.

>localbitcoins
I already addressed that. Who wants to buy bitcoins at a premium? Also, isn't the end goal to get away from having to meet up with people in person to conduct transactions? This seems like a step backwards.

>>1005291
Just like bank ledgers now right? People get into their servers ALL the time and insert malicious code. I'm not sure how to respond to you anymore because you think we time traveled back to the 80s.

>>1005296
Except those are debits and credits backed by cash. We're talking about banks storing value backed by their private cryptocurrency.

>>1005299
Wat? Do you know that banks only store a small portion of cash? I can explain fractional reserve banking if you would like? Banks internal ledgers are audited all the time. They are the most regulated and scrutinized businesses in the world. Do you think that somehow this would change because they update the technology for thier internal severs?

The only reason why bitcoin went from 2$ to 700$ and got people interested was the media hype.

If you didn't cash out then you are following this to the grave.

Rich families like rothschild and his bank will destroy Bitcoin, mark my words.

>>1005290
We're not proposing a solution, we're saying you've lost a war.

>BitCoin

cute. the banks didn't invent this shit and the leadership has no idea what it's doing. meanwhile, the guys who were involved with bitcoin during the early days and have been thinking about the problem space for years have moved on to next generation blockchain technology

Ethereum is the first true multi-purpose blockchain technology because it is Turing complete. It can fulfill absolutely every role related to the ownership of assets.

The banks are like chickens running around with their heads cut off right now. SQUAWK BITCOIN IN THE NEWS SQUAWK BLOCKCHAIN INTEGRATION

It's game over. You just don't realize it yet.

File: muhbankblockchains.png (172KB, 887x511px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 887x511px

>muh private blockchain cope
Everyone with knowledge on the field is laughing.

>>1005266
>muhhamid guy 5 reasons not to buy into the Bitcoin hype
His arguments are as fake as his profile picture.

>>1005281
You certainly don't. Take notes (very relevant to the private blockchain cope):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=810aKcfM__Q

>>1005404
You're going to have to condense it into an argument. I'd rather pull my hair out than watch autists discuss Bitcoin on YouTube.

>>1005354
The fact that Bitcoin is not Turin complete is a feature, it was designed that way because being Turin complete opens a myriad of potential exploits. Ethereum will never be as robust as Bitcoin for this sole reason.

Im not saying Ethereum hasn't got a place, im saying you are buying in to the "Bitcoin 2.0" delusion.

If anything, Bitcoin 2.0 is it's sidechains which include Ethereum in it (Rootstock).
No one cares about having to deal with multiple tokens, it will all fall down to BTC when possible.
I would still hold your ETH, im sure it will eventually pump.

>>1005409
>ignore people that know better than me about the subject
cope
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9mBc0Zk1YWs

>>1005415
>ignore autists talk for 50 minutes about Bitcoin when you should be able to condense his point into a few sentences
If you can't understand and explain what he's talking about yourself then you have no business posting it. I don't have an hour to waste on technical details that don't affect me.

>>1005417
>yet he has 2 hours to shitposting on 4chan
cope

>>1005412
>The fact that Bitcoin is not Turin complete is a feature

No. Bitcoin isn't TC because it was seen as too ambitious for the project at the beginning. It was the first blockchain tech to be implemented. Adding scripting to untested technology was just way too much complexity at the time.

Rootstock is vaporware. They *just* released a whitepaper. Ethereum actually exists and has been running for a few months now and has gotten tons of developer traction.

>>1005419
I've probably spent 20 minutes tops off responding to posts for the last couple hours. I ignore people that post long articles or long YouTube videos when they don't have an explanation of what's even in them. I have been very patient with you guys, but I refuse to devote an hour of my time to minute technical details that are not even relevant to the discussion. Most of you guys can't even make your own arguments. You rely on YouTube videos, articles, and infographics. Next time come prepared. If you don't know what you are talking about, then don't act like you do.

>>1005430
Your levels of low effort are very impressive, anon. 4chan discussions are extremely low bandwidth. If you already have your mind made up, it's likely that it'll stay that way unless you come with an open mind and are willing to spend time learning things outside of this forum.

No one really owes you anything and it doesn't seem like you're worth the effort beyond this post to be frank

>>1005440
That's interesting that you give up now when your argument fell flat. You can't even condense the gist of a YouTube video that purportedly debunks what I'm saying into a couple sentences. I get it though. It's not because you genuinely don't know, it's because I'm "not worth it". Good strategy you have there. That way you don't ever have to come up with an articulate response when someone asks what the hell you are talking about.

>>1005452
I'm not even the same guy that posted that, champ. Just fuck off already.

Yeah cause AOL intranet was such a grand idea in the big scheme of things.... /s

>>1005460
Sorry, sport. It's hard to differentiate which bullshit is coming from where.

>>1005412
Ether can't pump, it has no limit in supply. That's like asking the $ to pump. Sure it might get some bump from central banker manipulations but nothing that's going to retake the 99% loss in value over the last century.

>>1005421 This is /biz/ but i'll try..
TC(ness) is not required for BTC and would very likely lead to unforeseen problems and instability (mostly related to the halting problem). Money isn't a computer.
They address halting by fee paying for interpreter cycles. When the fee runs out the contract is stopped.
But there are obviously interpreter escape dangers, which are harder to contain for a stateful, looping, low level (byte code like) language. Look at the history of java sandbox escapes. People say that was mostly due to call outs to complex native library have to look through the (large!) CVE database on JVM to figure out the stats. Also the pressure may have been lower. If you get real money under it all kinds of resources and unrevealed 0-days can leak out of the woodwork and create the new target for grey and black hats some of whom are world class at this stuff. Or even from national security network intrusion insiders with Snowden-level access or the people developing and selling grey market 0-day to the intelligence community etc. Those people are fallible humans too - they may succum to the financial motive, or the people who developed and sold them the 0-days may find a new monetization model, or second use for them (they cant "forget" them after sale).

There have also been VM escapes from full hw abstraction vms (i mean not just API sandbox light linux-in-linux virtuozzo but actual whole OS in the container).

And finally bitcoin scripting is functional, stateless and non-looping (non TC in fact also) for a reason. Bitcoin doesnt (and I think its intentional) have even extrospection. There are grey-goo outcomes if you are not careful with even something as constrained as an extrospection op code to existing language. There will be whole classes of not yet imagined grey goo opportunities lurking in a full TC language. You cant easily systematically defend against whole classes of such issues without intentional constrained language.

>>1005466
Ether will pump because there's a certain hype surrounding it by illiterates like>>1005464 which buy into the bitcoin 2.0, bank blockchain meme, but obviously the all time graph will look like Litecoin eventually.
On Rootstock, even people like Szabo is supporting it (and he goes to Ethereum events). You are insane to ditch it as vaporware. Btw, speaking about vaporware:

>In an interview with CoinJournal, Jon Downing of Visa Europe Collab and Edan Yago of Epiphyte said that while they are interested in other systems, Bitcoin will likely play a role in the future and other blockchains have to be considered “at this point vapourware.” Seemingly a departure from the tone of other institutions that preferred to hype their own blockchain technologies over Bitcoin itself.

Even some people within the industry are getting the point already.

>>1005480
>thinks I'm hyping ether
Yet I'm the illiterate one. Wow.

>>1005480
Please don't misunderstand me. Ether is awesome at what it does, but it wasn't designed to be money or a store of value. But realistically LTC will probably still pump better than it simply because it was modeled closer to BTC in function. LTC is like a cute toy hotwheels car. BTC is like the brand new model T from Ford, the first real car for just about everyone. Ether is like an airplane, it's cool and serves a purpose but not everyone will need it. Horrible analogy obviously but I think it gets the point accross. I still wouldn't invest in it.

>>1005469
>>1005480
Problems with TC would apply to Rootstock as well. I am aware that it is an extremely difficult problem, but Ethereum has developers that have been actually building the thing for 18 months now.

Some of the Ethereum guys originally went to the Bitcoin core team and proposed creating a TC VM, but they were turned down. Bitcoin's development process is cautious and slow because it now supports a multi-billion dollar network and large ecosystem. Vitalik and friends decided to go out on their own because they realized that they could make progress faster by themselves. They're also innovating on things like blockchain sharding and PoS.

We'll see how long it takes for Rootstock to come out with a working product. Until then, Ethereum is the only platform that you can build smart contracts on.

>>1005275
Dude don't even joke like that. There's like $12 million worth of bitcoin on a harddrive in some UK dump.

>>1004977
They can do what they want with their toy ledger. People aren't going to want to put their money into something that they can't control. That's the whole point of Bitcoin.

Guys I just saw major price movement from China with the Bitcoin price. Something huge is about to happen. I am seriously worried.

>>1005275

If the address is invalid they'll just be returned to the originator address retard

If you want to get rid of some bitcoins then make an address and send them there and throw away the private key, although its utterly pointless as the entire bitcoin network can operate on a single bitcoin and fractions thereof

>>1005724
Explain.